Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 919 (GUJ)

Arshibhai Devabhai Duva v. State of Gujarat

2022-08-02

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4-State and Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 28. Both the petitions arise out of the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer, whereby, the respondent no. 4 rejected the objections raised by the petitioner against the inclusion of the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Bhatiya in Special Civil Application No. 15879 of 2021. The prayers of the SCA No. 15879 of 2021 reads thus: (A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate, writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4-Authorized Officer, annexed at Annexure-A to the petition. (B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, direction or order, directing the respondent No. 4-Authorized Officer to delete/exclude the names of respondent Nos. 5 to 28 from the voters list of traders constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya. (C) Pending final hearing and disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4-Authorized Officer, annexed at Annexure-A to the petition and thereby be pleased to restrain the respondent Nos. 5 to 28 from participating in the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya from the traders constituency. (D) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief in the interest of justice. 1.1. 5 to 28 from participating in the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya from the traders constituency. (D) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief in the interest of justice. 1.1. By way of the Draft Amendment, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “6(BB) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the notification dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 363 of 2021, annexed at Annexure-L to this Petition, so also the final voters list published vide notification bearing Outward No. 360 so far as includes the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28.” “6(CC) Pending hearing and final disposal of the main petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of notification dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward No. 363 of 2021, annexed at Annexure-L to the application, so also the final voters list published vide notification bearing outward no. 360 so far as includes the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28. 6(CCC) Pending final hearing and disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further process of elections of Traders Constituency of APMC, Bhatia.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 10 in the voters' list of cooperative marketing societies' constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Bhatiya in Special Civil Application No. 15883 of 2021. The prayers of Special Civil Application No. 15883 of 2021 reads thus: “(A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate, writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4-Authorized Officer, annexed at Annexure-A to the petition. (B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, direction or order, directing the respondent No. 4-Authorized Officer to delete/exclude the names of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 from the voters list of co-operative marketing societies' constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya. 5 to 10 from the voters list of co-operative marketing societies' constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya. (C) Pending final hearing and disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4-Authorized Officer, annexed at Annexure-A to the petition and thereby be pleased to restrain the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 from participating in the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya from the co-operative marketing societies' constituency. (D) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief in the interest of justice.” 2.1. By way of the Draft Amendment, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “6(BB) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the notification dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 363 of 2021, annexed at Annexure-L to this Petition, so also be pleased to quash and set aside the notification bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021 so far as includes the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 10 in the voters list.” “6(CC) Pending hearing and final disposal of the main petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of notification dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward No. 363 of 2021, annexed at Annexure-L to the application, so also the final voters list published vide notification dated 04.10.2021 so far as includes the respondent nos. 5 to 10 in the voters list. 6(CCC) Pending final hearing and disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the further process of elections of Cooperative Marketing Societies Constituency of APMC, Bhatia.” 3. As both the petitions are identical, the facts are narrated from Special Civil Application No. 15879 of 2021: 3.1. The petitioner society is holding license of the market committee and is eligible to cast vote in the elections of the APMC, Bhatiya. The petitioner is included in the voters' list in traders constituency, so also the cooperative marketing constituency for the elections of the APMC, Bhatiya. The election of the APMC, Bhatiya came to be declared by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 13.08.2021. The petitioner is included in the voters' list in traders constituency, so also the cooperative marketing constituency for the elections of the APMC, Bhatiya. The election of the APMC, Bhatiya came to be declared by the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 13.08.2021. According to which, preliminary voters' list was published on 04.09.2021, provisional voters' list was published on 22.09.2021 and final voters' list was published on 04.10.2021 and the election was scheduled to be held on 22.11.2021. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioner as stated by the petitioner is that on the date when the elections were declared, there were only 14 license holders in the market committee and the details of the said license holders were sought by the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer vide communication dated 24.08.2021 from the market committee. The APMC, Bhatiya vide its letter dated 31.08.2021 informed the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer that there are 14 societies which are holding license in the market committee and there is no other society or trader, who is holding the license. 3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that when the preliminary voters' list was published on 04.09.2021, only 14 societies/traders were included in the trader's constituency, so also in the cooperative marketing societies' constituency. 3.4. That after publication of the preliminary voters' list, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 applied for license on payment of license fees in the market committee and license came to be issued on or about 20.09.2021 and it was applied to the respondent no. 3-District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Devbhoomi Dwarka for grant of unified license. The said application came to be considered and granted license by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent nos. 5 to 28 on 20/21.09.2021. It is further stated that, though, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 was granted license only on 20/21.09.2021 and though they are not qualified to be included in the voters' list, the respondent no. 4 - Authorized Officer included the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in the provisional voters' list published on 22.09.2021. 3.5. The petitioner raised objections before the respondent no. 4 against the inclusion of the respondent nos. 4 - Authorized Officer included the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in the provisional voters' list published on 22.09.2021. 3.5. The petitioner raised objections before the respondent no. 4 against the inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in the provisional voters' list pointing out that in view of the judgments of the High Court, no trader or a society can be included in the voters' list, which have been granted license after declaration of election and the said inclusion is fraudulent and wrongful. 3.6. The respondent no. 4 without affording an opportunity of hearing, straightaway passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 rejecting the objections of the petitioner and thereafter published the final voters' list on 04.10.2021, whereby, the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 are continued in the final voters' list of traders' constituency. 3.7. It is further stated that the said order dated 30.09.2021 was not supplied/served to the petitioner, however, when the final voters' list was published on 04.10.2021, the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 have been continued in the voters' list. 3.8. In view of above, the petitioner herein was constrained to approach this Court by challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent no. -4 Authorized Officer, with the above referred prayers. 4. The order dated 20.10.2021 reads thus: “1. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Advocate has submitted that the order dated 30.09.2021 has been passed by the Authorised Officer, which would be illegal and bad inasmuch as the Authorised Officer has not considered the reply dated 29.09.2021 filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the specific contention was raised about the powers of issuance of the licenses to the voters. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in the case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2007 (3) GLH 57 wherein this Court has held and observed that the relevant date for determining the eligibility of a person for inclusion in the voters' list would be the date by which the Authorised Officer is to be communicated the names as indicated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, that is to say, before that date. It is also submitted that, subsequently, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya vs. Director Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance and Others, 2013 (3) GLH 157 , has held and observed that once a process of election has commenced, any person getting eligibility after such date can be termed as not entitled to be included in the voters list. It has also been held that the Authorised Officer will have no authority or competence or jurisdiction to include the names of such voters who have acquired eligibility after the date of declaration of the list. It is submitted that similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Mahendra Maganbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) GLHEL(HC) 230715. It is also submitted that in the case of Ramansinh Narsinh Rathod vs. State of Gujarat, the learned Single Judge, has laid down the guidelines for the purpose of preparation of the voters' list. It is therefore urged that the order dated 30.09.2021, passed by the Authorised Officer is without jurisdiction and against the principles laid down by this Court in various judgments. It is also submitted that as is discernible from the contents of the order dated 30.09.2021, the same is an unreasoned order. 2. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on advance copy, states that he would like to take instructions and file necessary reply. 3. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 11 on caveat, has at the outset raised preliminary objection as regard the maintainability of the captioned writ petition on the ground that there is a suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as, though an efficacious alternative remedy is available under Rule 28 of the Rules of 1965, the said aspect, is missing in the averments in the writ petition. 4. It is submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner that the license cannot be issued after the election is declared is misplaced inasmuch as the requirement of Section 11(1)(ii) is the qualification provided for contesting the elections and not for the voters who are included in the list. It is submitted that so far as the respondent no. 11 is concerned he is only the voter and not contesting the elections and therefore, such requirement would not be applicable to him. It is submitted that so far as the respondent no. 11 is concerned he is only the voter and not contesting the elections and therefore, such requirement would not be applicable to him. It is therefore submitted that the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Authorised Officer is in the right earnest and does not deserve to be interfered with. 5. Having regard to the submissions made, issue notice to the respondents returnable on 22.10.2021. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 11. Direct service today is permitted for the rest of the respondents.” 5. Further order came to be passed on 18.11.2021, which reads thus: “1. The captioned writ petitions were heard at length. During the course of the arguments the learned advocates for the respective parties have agreed for passing the following order, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. 2. The elections are scheduled to take place on 21.11.2021. 2.1. The issue in Special Civil Application No. 15879 of 2021 is relatable to the Traders Constituency wherein, the grievance is against inclusion of the names of the respondent Nos. 5 to 28. 2.2. So far as Special Civil Application No. 15883 of 2021 is concerned, the same pertains to the Cooperative Marketing Societies Constituency wherein, the grievance is against the inclusion of the names of the societies i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 10. 2.3. So far as Special Civil Application No. 16040 of 2021 is concerned, the same pertains to both i.e. Traders Constituency and Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency. 3. Considering the prayers and grant of interim prayers at this stage, it is likely to create irreversible situation and therefore, the elections are permitted to take place as scheduled i.e. on 21.11.2021. 3.1. The respondent Nos. 5 to 28 of Special Civil Application No. 15879 of 2021 are permitted to caste their votes; however, their votes shall be kept in a separate sealed cover. Similarly, the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 of Special Civil Application No. 15883 of 2021 are permitted to caste their votes and their votes shall also be kept in a separate sealed cover. Similarly, the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 of Special Civil Application No. 15883 of 2021 are permitted to caste their votes and their votes shall also be kept in a separate sealed cover. The counting and results of the elections of both the constituencies, namely, Traders Constituency so also, the Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency, shall not be declared till the next date of hearing. Needless to say that the elections of the aforesaid two Constituencies shall be subject to outcome of the captioned writ petitions. 4. Special Civil Application No. 16040 of 2021 to be heard along with Special Civil Application Nos. 15879 of 2021 and 15883 of 2021. 5. The Authorized Officer shall file affidavit, clarifying the publication of the voters' lists, all dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward Nos. 360 of 2021, 361 of 2021, 362 of 2021 and 363 of 2021 with respect to the Traders Constituency and Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency. The Authorized Officer shall also explain the issuance of communication dated 09.11.2021 whereby, it has been stated that the voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward No. 360 of 2021 has been issued as per the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by this Court. 6. List all the matters for further hearing on 24.11.2021 at 2:30 p.m. 7. Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed to communicate the contents of this order passed by this Court today to the Authorized Officer. Direct service today is permitted.” SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 6. Heard Mr. Dipen Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6.1. Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent nos. 5 to 28 are not eligible to be included in the voters' list, in view of the fact that that in order to be eligible to be included in the voters' list of traders constituency, Section 11 of the Act provides that, a trader must fulfill three conditions, viz. (i) it must have obtained license, (ii) it must have traded in conformity with the terms and conditions of license in the previous financial year and (iii) no fees payable by them should have remained unpaid by such trader. 6.2. Mr. Desai, learned counsel submitted that, in the present case, the second requirement i.e. trading in the previous financial year is not fulfilled by the respondent nos. 5 to 28 because the respondent nos. 6.2. Mr. Desai, learned counsel submitted that, in the present case, the second requirement i.e. trading in the previous financial year is not fulfilled by the respondent nos. 5 to 28 because the respondent nos. 5 to 28 have been granted licenses only on 20/21.09.2021. Therefore, they have not traded at all in the previous financial year and they have not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the voters' list. The Authorized Officer therefore has no power or authority to include such persons in the voters' list who have not fulfilled the eligibility criteria. It was further submitted that the entire exercise of grant of license issued by the respondent no. 3, who is the Election Officer, after the declaration of elections, and including such persons in the voters' list is mala-fide on the part of the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer. 6.3. Mr. Desai, learned counsel submitted that the Authorized Officer has rejected the objections of the petitioner vide order dated 30.09.2021, however, there is no such date in the schedule for 30.09.2021 and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.4. Mr. Desai, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner came to know that the Authorized Officer after publication of the final voters' list dated 04.10.2021 being notification Outward No. 360 of 2021, has by way of another notification bearing Outward No. 361 of 2021 of even date, published another final voters' list deleting the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters list of traders constituency. 6.5. Mr. Desai, learned counsel further submitted that again on 04.10.2021, the respondent Authorized Officer issued another notification bearing Outward No. 363 of 2021 informing that the final voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021 stands revived, meaning thereby, that the final voters' list, whereby, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 are included stands revived. 6.6. Mr. Desai, learned counsel submitted that on the same day, the Authorized Officer has published three voters' list, viz. (I) Outward No. 360 of 2021, wherein, respondent nos. 5 to 28 are continued in voters' list of traders constituency, (II) Outward No. 361 of 2021 deleting the respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders constituency and (III) Outward No. 363 of 2021 reviving the notification being Outward No. 360 of 2021, meaning thereby, that final voters' list, wherein, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 are continued in voters' list of traders constituency, (II) Outward No. 361 of 2021 deleting the respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders constituency and (III) Outward No. 363 of 2021 reviving the notification being Outward No. 360 of 2021, meaning thereby, that final voters' list, wherein, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in trader's constituency are continued. 6.7. Mr. Desai, learned counsel submitted that the Authorized Officer on one single day i.e. on 09.11.2021 addressed two separate letters to the Election Officer, wherein, on one hand, forwarded all the final voters' lists referred herein-above and in the other letter dated 09.11.2021, the Authorized Officer has only forwarded the final voters' list bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021, however, has wrongly stated that as per the order passed by this Court, the same is being forwarded, though there is no such order and this Court has only recorded the statement made on behalf of the learned advocate of the private respondents. 6.8. Mr. Desai, learned counsel submitted that the action of the Authorized Officer is without authority of law. The respondent nos. 5 to 28 have no eligibility to be included in the voters' list of traders constituency. 6.9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Desai, learned counsel has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 363 of 2021, so also the final voters list published vide notification bearing No. 360 so far as inclusion of the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 alongwith other relief, as referred herein-above. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 11: 7............... 7.1. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 11 submitted that the petition be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available under Rule-28 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1965. Mr. Rao, learned counsel further placed reliance to the decision reported in 2006 (1) GCD 211 (Para-33). 7.2. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has produced the license issued by the respondent no. 3-District Registrar on 20.09.2021, but the petitioner has not produced original application for license submitted by the respondent no. 11 and intentionally tried to mislead this Court. 7.3. Mr. 7.2. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has produced the license issued by the respondent no. 3-District Registrar on 20.09.2021, but the petitioner has not produced original application for license submitted by the respondent no. 11 and intentionally tried to mislead this Court. 7.3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the answering respondent had applied for license on 10.08.2021 to the District Registrar and the said application was duly inward in the office of the District Registrar on 10.08.2021 itself. 7.4. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the respondent no. 11 cannot be held to be liable for the delay which was caused at the instance of the District Registrar in granting the license to the respondent no. 11. Mr. Rao, learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid facts are suppressed by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner be relegated to avail statutory alternate remedy. 7.5. Mr. Rao, learned counsel further relied on the decisions reported in (2020) 12 SCC 186 (Para-43), Special Civil Application No. 15021 of 2020 decided on 17.12.2020 (Para-9 and 10), Special Civil Application No. 9946 of 2020 decided on 11.01.2021 (Para-16), Special Civil Application No. 10294 of 2011 decided on 09.09.2011 (Para-8, 11 and 12.1) and decision reported in (2016) 4 SCC 429 (Para-15). 7.6. Mr. Rao, learned counsel relying upon the aforesaid judgments, submitted that the petitioner be relegated to the alternate remedy. 7.7. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted on merits that the petitioner had filed objections on 01.10.2021 before the District Registrar, which was duly received by the District Registrar on 04.10.2021, wherein, complaint was made about the inclusion of names in the traders constituency in the voters' list, thereupon, after publication of final voters' list, the Authorized Officer published Sudharana Yadi (revised final voters' list), wherein, names have been deleted. The aforesaid facts are not stated by the petitioner in the present petition. 7.8. Mr. Rao, learned counsel further submitted that after voters' list having been finalized and published on 04.10.2021, Shri Dwarkadish Magfali Khet Utpadak Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandali Limited made an application to the District Registrar on 04.10.2021 and the District Registrar immediately on 04.10.2021 itself forwarded the same to the Authorized Officer. Likewise, one Nilesh Arshi Postariya also made an application to the respondent no. 3 on 04.10.2021 and the respondent no. 3 immediately on 04.10.2021 itself forwarded the same to the respondent no. 4. Mr. Likewise, one Nilesh Arshi Postariya also made an application to the respondent no. 3 on 04.10.2021 and the respondent no. 3 immediately on 04.10.2021 itself forwarded the same to the respondent no. 4. Mr. Rao, learned counsel further submitted that, both these applicants represented to the respondent no. 3 against inclusion of names in traders' constituency and in cooperative marketing societies' constituency. The District Registrar has compelled the Authorized Officer to amend/alter the final voters' list published on 04.10.2021 by publishing Sudharana Yadi vide Outward No. BSR K-3/361/2021 dated 04.10.2021 in respect of traders' constituency. This entire exercise is done at the behest of petitioner, who has very close proximity with the party in power. 7.9. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the present petition reveals disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the present petition. 7.10. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the judgments which are relied upon by the petitioner cannot be applied in the facts of the present case, because the answering respondent has applied for license well in advance and because of the Amendment of the Act, the power to grant license is vested with the District Registrar, who has been authorized by the Director, APMC to issue license under Section 27 or Section 27-A of the APMC Act and therefore, the license has been issued. The issue of relevant date for determination of eligibility of the person for inclusion in the voters' list for election of APMC is provided under Rule-7(1) does not arise. Mr. Rao, learned counsel further submitted that the answering respondent had applied for license and license has been issued, and therefore, the answering respondent had made an application to the Authorized Officer after publication of preliminary voters' list and submitted application alongwith copy of license. 7.11. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that, there is difference between Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act and Rule-7(ii) of the Rules. Section 11(1)(ii) provides for qualification to contest election from traders' constituency. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that on comparing the provisions of Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act r/w. definition of trader, the traders who are having license can cast their votes but cannot contest election, if the trader has not traded in the previous financial year and the fees payable by them has not remained unpaid. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that on comparing the provisions of Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act r/w. definition of trader, the traders who are having license can cast their votes but cannot contest election, if the trader has not traded in the previous financial year and the fees payable by them has not remained unpaid. But a trader who is having license can cast vote, but, if he wants to contest the election, he should fulfill the qualification as provided under Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act. 7.12. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the respondents are in receipt of the requisite qualifications, and therefore, eligible to cast vote. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the legislature has under the Principal Act provided that which trader can contest the election, who is having license and has traded in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the license in the previous financial year and the fees payable by them has not remained unpaid. Therefore, the Authorized Officer has included the answering respondents in the voters' list as voters only since the answering respondent fulfills the qualification to be voters' in the traders' constituency. 7.13. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the reliance place by the petitioner to the decision of 2018 (1) GLR 647 (Para-20) does not support the case of the petitioner and not applicable to the facts of the present case. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the Authorized Officer is under obligation to follow the Rules and Act. 7.14. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Akbari is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The concerned respondents are voters' in the voters' list and they may not be eligible to contest the elections and if they contents the election, then person has to raise objections and if they are not satisfying the criteria laid down under Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act, their candidatures would be liable to be rejected. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the Court has to interpret the section independently and look into the rule thereafter. Further, Section provides qualification for candidate who wants to contest election of traders' constituency, however, for voter there is no such qualification. The only requirement is he must have license and paid license fees. Therefore, the question of inflating voters' list does not arise. 7.15. Mr. Further, Section provides qualification for candidate who wants to contest election of traders' constituency, however, for voter there is no such qualification. The only requirement is he must have license and paid license fees. Therefore, the question of inflating voters' list does not arise. 7.15. Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the voters' list is prepared by the Authorized Officer for traders' constituency by including cooperative marketing societies is illegal, in view of the fact that for cooperative marketing societies, there is separate constituency provided under Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act, there only cooperative marketing societies can be included which are having license and have their last accounts audited in Class-A, B or C. 7.16. Mr. Rao, learned counsel lastly submitted that cooperative marketing society cannot be voter in traders' constituency because that is not the intention of the legislature. Otherwise, legislature would not have provided separate constituency for cooperative marketing societies, and therefore, also as the petition involves disputed questions of facts, the petition be dismissed. 7.17. Further, the respondent no. 11 filed affidavit in reply in response to the draft amendment and to place additional facts and documents. The relevant para of the said affidavit reads thus: “8. I say and submit that the petitioner has not placed these facts alongwith the draft amendment and filed amendment seeking prayer to quash and set aside final voter lists published vide outward no. 360 and 363. Petitioner has also prayed that during the pendency of the petition the operation of final voter lists published vide outward no. 360 and 363 be stayed. I say and submit that petitioner has not placed true and correct facts before this Hon'ble Court. I say and submit that petitioner has not placed on record the fact that on the basis of final voter list published by the Authorised Officer on 4.10.2021 vide Outward No. 360, the nomination papers are filed by candidates in all the three constituencies and thereafter, the Returning Officer has scrutinised the said nomination papers and published final list of contesting candidates on 10.11.2021. I say and submit that petitioner has not raised any objection against the candidature of the candidates which are filed on the basis of final voter list published vide outward No. 360. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-R6” (Colly.) are copies of final list of contesting candidates published by Returning Officer. I say and submit that petitioner has not raised any objection against the candidature of the candidates which are filed on the basis of final voter list published vide outward No. 360. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-R6” (Colly.) are copies of final list of contesting candidates published by Returning Officer. I further submit that the Returning Officer has drawn Rojkam for publication of list of candidature approved and disapproved on the notice board of APMC, Bhatiya on 10.11.2021. Petitioner has signed the said Rojkam also. 13. I say and submit that letter written by Authorised Officer on 9.11.2021 is sent to the Returning Officer on the date of filing of nomination papers. It is submitted that the said letter dated 9.11.2021 produced by the petitioner alongwith draft amendment has no bearing because on 4.10.2021 voter list has been finalised vide outward no. 360. Therefore subsequent voter list published by Authorised Officer vide Outward Nos. 361 and 362 are against the provisions of law. Not only that when petition came to be filed by the answering respondent being SCA No. 16040/2021 the Authorised Officer has made it clear to the Government Pleader that the voter list published by him vide Outward No. 360 is final. Therefore this letter has no meaning at all. It appears that the Authorised Officer has while addressing this letter, for reasons best known to him referred to the order of this Hon'ble Court when he himself has conveyed to the Learned A.G.P. that final voter list published by him by outward No. 360 is final. Therefore there is no question of mentioning about the order of the Hon'ble High Court. 14. I say and submit that now the election has proceeded and is at advanced stage. Now nominations are finalised and 13.11.2021 was the last date for withdrawal of candidature. Final list of candidates is also published under Rule-17(2) of APMC Rules. It is submitted that casting of votes is on 21.11.2021. I say and submit that inclusion of name in the voter list is purely election related matter and therefore it should not be interfered at this stage. Whether any person is rightly or wrongly included in the voter list can be decided only in the election petition. 15. It is submitted that casting of votes is on 21.11.2021. I say and submit that inclusion of name in the voter list is purely election related matter and therefore it should not be interfered at this stage. Whether any person is rightly or wrongly included in the voter list can be decided only in the election petition. 15. It is submitted that there are number of judgments of this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the election process has started and reached advance stage, the High Court should refrain from interfering with the election process and parties should be relegated to the remedy of election petition to challenge the same in accordance with law.” 7.18. Relying on the further affidavit as referred above/as reproduced above, Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that inclusion of the name of the respondent no. 11 in voters' list is purely the election related matter and this Court should not interfere at this stage and whether any person is rightly or wrongly included in the voters' list can be decided only in the election petition and in view of above, Mr. Rao, learned counsel submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.” SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 4-AUTHORIZED OFFICER: 8............... 8.1. Heard Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 8.2. Mr. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent no. 4, viz. M.T. Zala, Assistant Cooperative Officer, office of the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka dated 23.11.2021. The relevant Paras of the said affidavit reads thus: “6. I say and submit that I published the voter's list for the trader's constituency vide Communication bearing outward No. 361/2021 as well as voter's list for the Cooperative Marketing Societies constituency vide communication bearing outward No. 362/2021 based upon the objections contained in the aforesaid applications. The copies of the communications bearing outward No. 361/2021 and 362/ 2021 dated 04.10.2021, reflecting the rectified voter's lists are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-Iv (Colly.). 7. I say and submit that an advocate Mr. The copies of the communications bearing outward No. 361/2021 and 362/ 2021 dated 04.10.2021, reflecting the rectified voter's lists are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-Iv (Colly.). 7. I say and submit that an advocate Mr. Jitubhai Thakar, advised me that the earlier rectified voter's list published vide communications bearing outward No. 361/2021 and 362/2021 are erroneous and not in accordance with law and therefore, based upon the said advice, the final voter's list of all the constituencies published vide communication bearing outward No. 360/2021 were reaffirmed by me vide communication bearing outward No. 363/2021. A copy of the communication bearing outward No. 363/2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-V. 8. I tender my unconditional apology for issuing the communication bearing outward No. 363/2021 by relying upon the advice given by the Advocate Mr. Jitubhai Thakar. I should have exercised my own discretion and understanding while discharging my duties as an Authorized Officer and therefore I seek pardon from the Hon'ble Court for the mistake and lapse committed by me.” 8.3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021, the respondent no. 4, viz. J.B. Ravaliya, Cooperative Officer (Marketing), Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka filed further affidavit dated 23.11.2021. The relevant paras of the said affidavit reads thus: “3. The present affidavit in reply is filed in compliance of the oral order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Court, whereby the Hon'ble Court has directed the undersigned i.e., Authorized Officer to file affidavit, clarifying the publication of the voters' lists, all dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward Nos. 360 of 2021, 361 of 2021, 362 of 2021 and 363 of 2021 with respect to the Traders Constituency and Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency. The Hon'ble Court has further directed to the Authorized Officer to explain the issuance of communication dated 09.11.2021 whereby, it has been stated that the voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward No. 360 of 2021 has been issued as per the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by this Court. A copy of order dated 18.11.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-I. 4. I say and submit that I was directed to assume charge as Co-operative Officer (Marketing), District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka, vide order dated 21.10.2021 and assumed the said charge on 22.10.2021. A copy of the Order dated 21.10.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-II. 5. I say and submit that I was directed to assume charge as Co-operative Officer (Marketing), District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka, vide order dated 21.10.2021 and assumed the said charge on 22.10.2021. A copy of the Order dated 21.10.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-II. 5. I say and submit that the copy of the oral order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Court in the present petition was hand delivered to me by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka, on 09.11.2021 on 10:40 a.m. I further say and submit that the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka, had intimated me that the Hon'ble Court has held the final Voter's list dated 04.10.2021 issued vide Communication bearing Serial No. 360/2021 to be final and in consonance of the same, the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, DevBhoomi Dwarka, had asked me to undertake the further process of election of APMC, Bhatiya. 6. I say and submit that I have therefore addressed the communication dated 09.11.2021 to the Election Officer intimating the fact that the further process of Election of APMC, Bhatiya has to be undertaken in light of the oral Order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Court. A copy of the Communication dated 09.11.2021 addressed by me to the Election Officer and District Registrar, Cooperative Society, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka, herewith annexed and marked as Annexure R-III. 7. I say and submit that I have misunderstood and misinterpreted the oral Order dated 29.10.2021 passed in present petition as I am not well conversant in English language and hence, I relied upon the oral instructions given to me by the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka. I tender unconditional apology for the error and mistake committed by me. I seek pardon from the Hon'ble Court for the mistake and lapse committed by me vide Communication dated 09.11.2021 issued by me.” 8.4. Mr. Pandya, learned AGP relying on the aforesaid affidavit submitted that the order passed by the competent authority was just and proper and no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the respondent authority.” CONCLUSION: 9............... 9.1. The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Authorized Officer which is duly produced at Annexure-A to the petition, wherein, the respondent no. 9.1. The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Authorized Officer which is duly produced at Annexure-A to the petition, wherein, the respondent no. 4 rejected the objections of the petitioner by the impugned order as referred above, and thereafter, published the final voters' list on 04.10.2021, whereby, the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 came to be continued in the final voters' list in the list of traders' constituency for the ensuing election of APMC, Bhatia. 9.2. The election of APMC, Bhatia came to be declared by an order dated 13.08.2021. In view of on-going elections, the preliminary voters' list came to be published on 04.09.2021, in which only 14 societies/traders were included in the traders' constituency so also the cooperative marketing societies' constituency. It appears that the respondent nos. 5 to 28 applied for license to the market committee on 20.09.2021 and the license came to be granted by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent nos. 5 to 28 on 20/21.09.2021. The respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer included the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in the provisional voters' list published on 22.09.2021. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner filed objections which came to be rejected by the impugned communication dated 30.09.2021 by the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer. 9.3. It appears that the aforesaid objections came to be rejected by the respondent no. 4 authority without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further the copy of the order dated 30.09.2021 was also not supplied to the petitioner. On publication of final voters' list on 04.10.2021, the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 came to be continued in the voters' list of traders' constituency. On inquiry, the petitioner was denied the answer by the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer. 9.4. In view of above, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present petition, in which Notice came to be issued vide order dated 20.10.2021 and further order came to be passed on 18.11.2021 as referred above. 9.5. It appears that the Authorized Officer published four voters' list of even date i.e. on 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021, 361 of 2021, 362 of 2021 and 363 of 2021 with respect to both i.e. traders' constituency and cooperative marketing society' constituency. 9.5. It appears that the Authorized Officer published four voters' list of even date i.e. on 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021, 361 of 2021, 362 of 2021 and 363 of 2021 with respect to both i.e. traders' constituency and cooperative marketing society' constituency. By order dated 18.11.2021, the Authorized Officer was directed to explain the issuance of the said communication dated 09.11.2021, wherein, it was stated that the voters' list dated 04.10.2021 being Outward No. 360 of 2021 was issued as per the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by this Court. The said communication dated 09.11.2021 reads thus: (A) “Dated: 09.11.2021 Camp: APMC, Bhatiya To, The Electoral Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee-Bhatiya and District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Devbhumi Dwarka. Subject: To submit voters lists. Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Bhatiya. Respected Sir, It is to state that Voters List No. 360, 361, 362, 363 dated 04.10.2021 for the General Election-2021 of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Bhatiya are hereby submitted to you. Kindly do the needful. Sd/- (Illegible) Authorized Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Bhatiya and Co-operative Officer cum District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Porbandar.” (B) “Camp: Bhatiya Date: 09.11.2021 To, The Electoral Officer and The District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Devbhumi Dwarka. Subject: To submit final voter list Respected Sir, It is to state that Final Voters List as per Letter No. BSR/S-3/360/2021 dated 04.10.2021 pursuant to the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for the General Election-2021 of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Bhatiya is hereby submitted to you for election proceedings. Kindly do the needful. Sd/- (Illegible) Authorized Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Bhatiya and Co-operative Officer (Market) cum District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Devbhumi Dwarka. Enclosure: Copy of Oral Order of the Hon'ble High Court” 9.6. Pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2021, the Authorized Officer in his affidavit has accepted that the Authorized Officer published the four voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward Nos. 360/2021, 361/2021, 362/2021 and 363/2021 with respect to the Traders' and Cooperative Marketing Societies' Constituency and has further stated that the voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 360/2021 came to be issued in pursuance to the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by this Court. 360/2021, 361/2021, 362/2021 and 363/2021 with respect to the Traders' and Cooperative Marketing Societies' Constituency and has further stated that the voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 360/2021 came to be issued in pursuance to the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by this Court. The Authorized Officer in his affidavit in reply also stated that on intimation by the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Devbhoomi Dwarka that this Court has held that the final voters' list dated 04.10.2021 issued vide communication bearing serial no. 360/2021 to be final and in consonance of the same, on communication/intimation by the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Devbhoomi Dwarka, the respondent no. 4 undertook the aforesaid procedure. 9.7. It appears that the voters' list being Outward No. 360/2021 was published without including the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders' constituency. On the same date, the respondent no. 4 issued notification being Outward No. 363 of 2021 informing that the final voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021 stands revived, meaning thereby, the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 stands revived. The said communication dated 04.10.2021 reads thus: “O/w. No. BSR/S-3/363/2021 Date: 04.10.2021 PUBLIC NO TICE REGARDING U NALTERED PUBLICATION OF FINAL Publication of Final Voter List for the General Election 2021 of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Bhatiya was published on 04.10.2021 vide O/w. No. BSR/S-3/360/2021. Wherein list of (V Agriculturist Vote Section (2) Traders Vote Section and (3) Co-operative Purchase and Sales Union Vote Section shall remain as it is without any alteration. Accordingly, the same is published conspicuously for the public at the Of/ice and Main Compound of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Bhatiya and on the notice board of the office of the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Devbhumi Dwarka. which may be noted by the concerned. Sd/- (Illegible) Authorized Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee - Bhatiya and Assistant Co-operative Officer cum District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Devbhumi Dwarka.” 9.8. Resultant effect is that, on an even day i.e. on 04.10.2021, the Authorized Officer published three final voters' list, viz. (i) Outward No. 360 of 2021, wherein the respondent nos. 5 to 28 are continued in the voters' list of traders' constituency, (ii) Outward No. 361 of 2021, deleting the respondent nos. Resultant effect is that, on an even day i.e. on 04.10.2021, the Authorized Officer published three final voters' list, viz. (i) Outward No. 360 of 2021, wherein the respondent nos. 5 to 28 are continued in the voters' list of traders' constituency, (ii) Outward No. 361 of 2021, deleting the respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders' constituency and (iii) Outward No. 363 of 2021 reviving the notification bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021, meaning thereby, the names of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 be continued in the final voters' list in traders' constituency. 9.9. The election was held on 21.11.2021. The respondent nos. 5 to 28 in accordance with the order dated 18.11.2021 were permitted to cast their votes. The votes are kept in a separate sealed cover and identical directions were given in Special Civil No. 15883 of 2021 with respect to Cooperative Marketing Societies' Constituencies. 9.10. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 28 submitted that the petitioner be relegated to avail alternative remedy by filing election petition under Rule-28 of the Rules. Mr. Rao, learned counsel however fairly submitted that the conduct of the Authorized Officer cannot be said to be befitting and that the same can be said to be deprecated. 9.11. Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the order passed by the respondent authority was just and proper, placing reliance on the affidavits duly filed by the respondent no. 4. 9.12. The aforesaid reveals sorry state of affairs. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the Rules framed under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Committee Rules, 1965 which provides for various stages of election of market committee and also provide for manner for conducting the elections, as also the provisions for determination of validity of election under Rule-28. 9.13. Rule-2(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 reads thus: “2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, 2(2) “Authorized Officer” (a) in relation to a market committee means such officer as the Director may designate for a district to perform the functions of an authorized officer; and (b) in relation to the Board means the Director.” 9.14. The date of election is to be fixed by the Director by order in writing. Rule 7 provides for preparation of voters' list for general election. The date of election is to be fixed by the Director by order in writing. Rule 7 provides for preparation of voters' list for general election. Rule 7(2) provides for list of voters' to be prepared on the basis of the information received and after making necessary inquiry. Rule 8(1) provides for preparation of voters' list after the objections are received against the provisional list and Rule 8(2) provides for preparation of final list which is required to be prepared within 30 days before the date of nomination. Rule-8 of the Rules reads thus: “RULE 8 - Provisional and final publication of lists of voters: (1) As soon as a list of voters is prepared under rule 5, it shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof at the office of the market committee and at some conspicuous place in the principal market yard. In the market area along with a notice stating that any person whose name is not entered in the list of voters and who claims that his name should be entered therein or any person who thinks that his name or the name of some other person has been wrongly entered therein or has not been correctly entered, may, within fourteen days from the date of the publication of the notice, apply to the authorised officer for an amendment of the list of voters. (1-A) After receiving applications if any, under sub-rule (1) a revised draft list of voters shall be published by the authorised officer by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of Agricultural Produce Market Committee and at some conspicuous place In the principal market yard of the market area, alongwith a notice stating that any person who wishes to raise any objection against any new name entered in this list, may apply within seven days from the date of publication of this notice to the authorised officer for an amendment in the revised draft list of voters. (2) If any application is received under [sub-rule (1- A)] the authorised officer shall decide the same and shall cause to be prepared and published the final list of voters, after making such amendments therein as may be necessary in pursuance of the decision given by him on the application. (2) If any application is received under [sub-rule (1- A)] the authorised officer shall decide the same and shall cause to be prepared and published the final list of voters, after making such amendments therein as may be necessary in pursuance of the decision given by him on the application. The final list shall be prepared at least thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election.” 9.15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.N. Jeevaraj and Others vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 653 observed thus: “42. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, this Court held that it is primarily the responsibility and duty of a statutory authority to take a decision and it should be enabled to exercise its discretion independently. If the authority does not exercise its mind independently, the decision taken by the statutory authority can be quashed and a direction given to take an independent decision. It was said: “Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter-alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the words “shall” or “must.” But this is not conclusive as “shall” and “must” have, sometimes, been interpreted as “may.” What is determinative of the nature of duty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the statute in which the “duty” has been set out. Even if the “duty” is not set out clearly and specifically in the statute, it may be implied as correlative to a “right.” In the performance of this duty, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another authority, the Court would intervene in the matter, quash the order and issue a mandamus to that authority to exercise its own discretion.” 9.16. In the facts of the present case, the Director designated the respondent no. 4 as an Authorized Officer. In the facts of the present case, the Director designated the respondent no. 4 as an Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer therefore is required to prepare the provisional and final list of voters' under Rule-8 as soon as the list of voters' is prepared under Rule-5, the same is to be published as required, to enable the petitioner to lodge the objections regarding inclusion and exclusion of any voters' in the list. Under Rule-8(1)(A) after receiving such objections with respect to the new names in the revised voters' list, the revised draft list of voters' is to be published. After the revised list is published, the objections are again required to be considered by the Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer is to decide the same and publish the final voters' list. The said list is to be prepared within 30 days before the date fixed for the nomination of the candidates for the election. Therefore, on the basis of the information that is sought for by the Authorized Officer from the various societies and the same has to be after considering the objections raised by the concerned persons and dealing with all contentions, the Authorized Officer is required to pass a reasoned order. The Authorized Officer requires to take conscious decision with regard to hold the election of APMC. 9.17. According to the petitioner, the preliminary list dated 04.09.2021 should be considered as the final voters' list as the petitioner had raised objections against the inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in provisional voters' list. The affidavit filed by the respondents and specifically respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer reveal very sorry states of affairs. It appears from the affidavit that there are three voters' list i.e. (I) Outward No. 360 of 2021, wherein, respondent nos. 5 to 28 are continued in voters' list of traders constituency, (II) Outward No. 361 of 2021 deleting the respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders constituency and (III) Outward No. 363 of 2021 reviving the notification being Outward No. 360 of 2021, meaning thereby, that final voters' list, wherein, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in trader's constituency are continued. 9.18. According to the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4, the voters' list bearing No. 361 of 2021 was prepared on the advise of advocate Jitubhai Thakar which resulted into inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in trader's constituency are continued. 9.18. According to the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4, the voters' list bearing No. 361 of 2021 was prepared on the advise of advocate Jitubhai Thakar which resulted into inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in trader's constituency as voters' and the same was reaffirmed by communication No. 363 of 2021. Thus, it is admitted by the Authorized Officer that the voters' list bearing No. 363 of 2021 was drawn at the instance of advocate Mr. Jitubhai Thakar. That the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer (M.T. Zala, working as an Assistant Cooperative Officer, office of the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka) filed affidavit on 23.11.2021 and has stated in Para-7 and 8 which reads thus: “7.I say and submit that an advocate Mr. Jitubhai Thakar, advised me that the earlier rectified voter's list published vide communications bearing outward No. 361/2021 and 362/2021 are erroneous and not in accordance with law and therefore, based upon the said advice, the final voter's list of all the constituencies published vide communication bearing outward No. 360/2021 were reaffirmed by me vide communication bearing outward No. 363/2021. A copy of the communication bearing outward No. 363/2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-V. 8. I tender my unconditional apology for issuing the communication bearing outward No. 363/2021 by relying upon the advice given by the Advocate Mr. Jitubhai Thakar. I should have exercised my own discretion and understanding while discharging my duties as an Authorized Officer and therefore I seek pardon from the Hon'ble Court for the mistake and lapse committed by me.” In view of this Court, the voters' list no. 363 of 2021 cannot be accepted, as the same is invalid in law. 9.19. In further affidavit in reply filed by J.B. Ravaliya, working as Cooperative Officer (Marketing), Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka, office of the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka dated 23.11.2021, it is accepted by the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer in Para-3 with regard to the clarification and voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward Nos. 360 of 2021, 361 of 2021, 362 of 2021 and 363 of 2021 with respect to the Traders' Constituency and Cooperative Marketing Societies' Constituency. 4-Authorized Officer in Para-3 with regard to the clarification and voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward Nos. 360 of 2021, 361 of 2021, 362 of 2021 and 363 of 2021 with respect to the Traders' Constituency and Cooperative Marketing Societies' Constituency. In view of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021, the Authorized Officer has on oath stated that voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021 was issued as per the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by this Court. In Para-4 of the affidavit dated 23.11.2021, the respondent no. 4 submitted that he was directed to assume charge as Cooperative Officer (Marketing), District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka vide order dated 21.10.2021 and assumed the said charge on 22.10.2021. The deponent of the said affidavit has stated that the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka had intimated to him that the Hon'ble Court has held the final voters' list dated 04.10.2021 issued vide communication bearing serial no. 360 of 2021 to be final and in consonance of the same, the District Registrar had asked the deponent of that affidavit to undertake the further process of election of APMC, Bhatiya. The deponent of that affidavit further stated that therefore the respondent no. 4 addressed a communication dated 09.11.2021 to the Election Officer intimating the fact that further process of election of APMC, Bhatiya is required to be undertaken in light of the oral order dated 29.10.2021 passed by this Court. It is further stated in the said affidavit dated 23.11.2021 that he has misunderstood and misinterpreted the oral order dated 29.10.2021 passed in the present petition, in view of the fact that the deponent is not well conversant in English language and therefore, relied on oral instructions given by the District Registrar and has tendered the unconditional apology stating that it was a mistake. 9.20. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent no. 4 - Authorized Officer after publishing the final voters' list dated 04.10.2021 being Notification Outward No. 360 of 2021, has by way of notification bearing Outward No. 361 of 2021 of the even date, published another final voters' list deleting the names of respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders constituency. Thereafter, again the respondent no. 4 - Authorized Officer after publishing the final voters' list dated 04.10.2021 being Notification Outward No. 360 of 2021, has by way of notification bearing Outward No. 361 of 2021 of the even date, published another final voters' list deleting the names of respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders constituency. Thereafter, again the respondent no. 4 on 04.10.2021 issued another Notification Outward No. 363 of 2021 informing that the final voters' list dated 04.10.2021 bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021 stands revived, meaning thereby, that the final voters' list, whereby, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 are included stands revived. Further, the respondent no. 4 on the even day has published three final voters' list, viz. (1) Outward No. 360 of 2021, wherein, the respondent nos. 5 to 28 are continued in the voters' list of traders constituency, (2) Outward No. 361 of 2021 deleting the respondent nos. 5 to 28 from the voters' list of traders constituency and (3) Outward No. 363 of 2021 reviving the notification bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021. Meaning thereby, final voters' list wherein the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in traders' constituency are continued. The respondent no. 4 on one single day i.e. on 09.11.2021 addressed two separate letters to the Election Officer, wherein, on one hand, the respondent no. 4 forwarded all the final voters' list referred herein-above, and in the other letter dated 09.11.2021, the respondent no. 4 has only forwarded the final voters' list bearing Outward No. 360 of 2021, stating that the said list was as per the order passed by this Court dated 29.10.2021. 9.21. In view of above, having regard to the affidavits on record, the Authorized Officer having admitted that Notification No. 360 of 2021 was issued at the instance of advocate Mr. Jitubhai Thakar, which resulted in inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 in trader's constituency as voters' and the same was reaffirmed by communication No. 363 of 2021 and further the Authorized Officer has admitted that Notification No. 363 of 2021 was issued at the instance of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and on the basis of the directions which is issued by this Court by its order dated 29.10.2021. No such direction was issued by this Court in the order dated 29.10.2021 or any order passed thereafter. No such direction was issued by this Court in the order dated 29.10.2021 or any order passed thereafter. On the aforesaid ground alone, all the voters' list are required to be invalidated and to be quashed and set aside. The objections filed by the petitioner against the inclusion of the respondent nos. 5 to 28 came to be rejected by the Authorized Officer by the impugned order / communication dated 30.09.2021, without communicating the aforesaid order to the petitioner. Having admitted that the Authorized Officer referring to the Election Officer, submitted four final voters' list i.e. Outward No. 360 of 2021, 361 of 2021, 362 of 2021 and 363 of 2021 dated 04.10.2021 for general election of APMC, Bhatia for doing the needful and by a letter of even date to the Election Officer stated that final voters' list as per the Outward No. 360 of 2021 dated 04.10.2021 was pursuant to the order passed by this Court for general election 2021 of APMC, Bhatia came to be submitted for election proceedings. Admittedly, no such directions of orders were issued this Court. 9.22. The aforesaid facts reveal that respondent no. 4 has failed to discharge his duty as required under the Rules which have been referred to herein-above. The final voters' list prepared by the respondent no. 4 is required to be quashed and set aside and the Authorized Officer is required to act in accordance with the provisions of Rule-8 of the Rules for publication of list of voters'. The objections, invited shall be dealt with in accordance with law by giving reasons. The Director, Agriculture Marketing Committee of the Rural Finance Gujarat State, shall undertake fresh exercise in designating any other officer other than respondent no. 4 to perform the functions of the Authorized Officer as required under Rule- 7 of the Rules, 1965. 9.23. In view of above, the Rules require the authorized officer to take a decision as regards the provisional list after the objections are received. The list is to be prepared, which, according to him, can be made final and after 7 days, a final voters' list is to be prepared after the authorized officer is required to consider objections and therefore, the decision has to be objective on the basis of information that he had sought from various societies and has to be after considering the objections with reasoned order. The authorized officer requires to take conscious decision having regard to the scheme of the rules for holding election. The law requires him to perform his duty under the Act and the Rules and act independently and pass orders finalizing the list. The authorized officer is required to take an independent impartial decision and cannot take assistance, internal or external. No internal or external advice can be received by him from any authority. If the authority does not apply its mind independently, the decision taken by the authority is required to be quashed and the Authorized Officer is required to be directed to a fresh list on the basis of the provisional list which has been prepared by him. 9.24. The four voters' list published by the respondent no. 4 - Authorized Officer suffers from non-application of mind and the same are required to be quashed and set aside. 10. This Court is inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the aforesaid glaring irregularities committed by the respondent authority/Authorized Officer. The publishing of four voters' lists of even date by the Authorized Officer itself results in a dispute as to which voters' list can be said to be final. 11. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4-Authorized Officer is required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the voters' list published vide Outward No. 360 of 2021 is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, all the four voters' list published vide Outward Nos. 360/2021, 361/2021, 362/2021 and 363/2021 are also quashed and set aside. The respondent authority is directed to initiate the election process with respect to the election of APMC, Bhatia with respect to the Traders' and Cooperative Marketing Societies' constituencies from the stage of Rule-8 (1) of the APMC Rules, 1965 i.e. fresh list is directed to be published after receiving the objections, as required under Rule-8(1) of the Rules, 1965. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute. The interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 13. Copy of this order be provided to the Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, New Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar for initiating appropriate inquiry.