JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J. 1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the appellants - original petitioners have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.18140 of 2021. 2. The background of the facts which has given rise to filing of present Letters Patent Appeal is that election of Agriculture Produce Markets Committee, Vankaner (hereinafter referred to as "the APMC, Vankaner) had been notified by Director of APMC on 13.10.2021 in view of Rule 4 of the APMC Rules, 1965. The Director by such declaration has specified the various stages of election programme including the stage of preparation of voters list and casting of votes and declaration of result. Simultaneously, one Mr. J. M. Mehta, Co-operative Officer, Grade-II (Industry) had been appointed as an Authorized Officer who is attached to the office of District Registrar, Co-operative Society, Morbi. By virtue of Rule 7 of the APMC Rules, every co-operative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area shall communicate the full names of members of its managing committee together with the place of residence of each members and the last date for sending such particulars was prescribed as 24.10.2021. On the basis of such material being supplied, the APMC, Vakaner has prepared a voter list in view of Section 11 of the APMC Act and forwarded the same to the Authorized Officer. 2.1. It is further case of the appellants that on receipt of the voters list from the APMC, Vakaner, the Authorized Officer has published a preliminary voter list on 29.10.2021 and same was published in view of Rule 7(2) of the APMC Rules since Authorized Officer is under an obligation to publish the same. The Authorized Officer has accordingly published the preliminary voter list for all the three constituencies, i.e. Agriculturists' constituency, co-operative marketing societies constituency and traders constituency on 29.10.2021. The present appellants relates to the voters list of Agriculturists' constituency. 2.2. The Authorized Officer has accordingly published the preliminary voter list for all the three constituencies, i.e. Agriculturists' constituency, co-operative marketing societies constituency and traders constituency on 29.10.2021. The present appellants relates to the voters list of Agriculturists' constituency. 2.2. It is further the case of the appellants that as per the bye laws of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., the appointment of representative of Shree Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is extending loan to the society is made on the Managing Committee and vide latter dated 22.09.2021 nominated one Shri Hasanhbai Allauddinbhai Patel, the appellant No.10 herein as representative of the Bank on the Managing Committee of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. and authorized him to vote at the election of the society as well as his name has to be sent as a member of managing committee and he can cast vote as representative of the bank. Insofar as preliminary voter list of agriculturists' constituency for the election of APMC, Vankaner, the names of petitioners appear at serial Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 76, 77, 79 and 81 respectively. As per the requirement after publication of preliminary voter list, within 14 days from the date of publication thereof, any person who desires to file objection against inclusion of any person in the voter list or any person whose name is left out in the voter list can make an application for inclusion or exclusion of names as the case may be. 2.3. It is stated by the appellants that respondent No.4 as such has submitted an objection on 02.11.2021 against inclusion of names of petitioners in the voters list. A copy of the said objection was not supplied to the appellants or Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. by the Authorized Officer and the Authorized Officer without supply of such has sent a notice dated 02.11.2021 to Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. calling upon the society to remain present before the Authorized Officer on 09.11.2021. A copy of the said objection was not supplied to the appellants or Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. by the Authorized Officer and the Authorized Officer without supply of such has sent a notice dated 02.11.2021 to Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. calling upon the society to remain present before the Authorized Officer on 09.11.2021. On 09.11.2021, Shri Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. submitted a detailed reply to the said notice issued by the Authorized Officer but then according to appellants without considering the same by an order dated 15.11.2021, the Authorized Officer passed an order rejecting the objection raised by the respondent No.4 by specific order and upon such rejection of objection, the authorized Officer then published a revised draft voters list on 17.11.2021. In the said revised draft voters list for agriculturists' constituency, the names of appellants appear again at serial Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 76, 77, 79 and 81. 2.4. It is the grievance of the appellants that despite the aforesaid situation, once again respondent No.4 has submitted an objection on 22.11.2021 again without serving copy to the appellants pointed out the discrepancy, the Authorized Officer surprisingly accepted the said objection and without granting any opportunity to the appellants passed an order on 27.11.2021 and deleted the names of the appellants/members of the Managing Committee from the final voters' list of agriculturists' constituency for the election of APMC, Vankaner. The said order was served to the appellants in their personal capacity and a copy thereof was also sent to Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. The order was not despatched by the Authorized Authority but it has been despatched by the District Registrar, Morbi on 27.11.2021 and according to appellants, it was received by Vankaner Post Officer on 29.11.2021 which in turn came to be served upon the appellants at 3.00 p.m. 2.5. It is the case of the appellants that thereafter the Authorized Officer published a final voters list on 29.11.2021 in respect of list of agriculturists' constituency wherein the names of appellants have been deleted and as such said order passed by the Authorized Officer dated 27.11.2021 is not finding favour with present appellants and they have preferred a writ petition which was numbered as Special Civil Application No.18140 of 2021 by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the order of Authorized Officer dated 27.11.2021 was called in question in said petition and had sought for consequential reliefs as contained in paragraph 29 of the Special Civil Application. 2.6. This petition initially came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 28.12.2021 in which taking note of the situation election schedule is already fixed and election came to be held on 11.01.2022, and that voting which may took place would not create any equities in favour of any party and such votes which may be cast shall be kept by the Authorized Officer in a sealed cover since appellants were not afforded any opportunity and later on after the said initial order being passed on 28.12.2021, the matter came up for consideration, wherein after hearing both the sides, and after examining the relevant material, the rules applicable and keeping in view the settled proposition of law, learned Single Judge on 12.04.2022 has opined that petition under extraordinary jurisdiction may not be entertained and as such without entering into merits held as substantive remedy is available to the appellants by way of an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rule, 1965, petition came to be disposed of by vacating the interim order and it is this final order which is passed, after hearing both the sides, which is the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 3. Looking to the urgency of the situation and the specific request having been made by both the learned advocates and in view of the initial order passed on 18.04.2022, we accepted the request of learned advocates for hearing and disposal of present Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, we have heard Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. Jay B. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4, Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent State and Mr. Accordingly, we have heard Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. Jay B. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4, Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent State and Mr. B. S. Patel, learned senior counsel who stated to have been specially appointed to represent the authority. 4. Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that order passed by the Authorized Officer at a subsequent point of time is impermissible in view of settled position of law and once objections filed earlier were already turned down, the Authorized Officer was not supposed to entertain same objection and pass a fresh order and thereto without granting any opportunity to the appellants. It has been submitted that since the order is not justified in the eye of law, the alternative remedy may not be an efficacious remedy for the appellants and as such Mr. Rao, Learned Advocate has submitted that learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in disposing of the petition by concluding that a substantive election petition can be filed under Rule 28. 4.1. Mr. Rao, learned advocate has further submitted that appellants have a good case on merits and the effect of various rules applicable would clearly indicate that order passed by the Authorized Officer is not sustainable and when that be so, even, if any, alternative remedy is available which according to him is not there also, Court is empowered to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction. 4.2. Mr. Rao, learned advocate has further submitted that a bare reading of Rule 28 would clearly indicate that said remedy is not available to the appellants in view of the fact that since appellants cannot be said to be qualified who can submit election petition. It has been vehemently contended that once objection of respondent No.4 was already taken into consideration and turned down, there is no scope for further objection to be raised and as such by drawing our attention to Rule 8(A) of the Rules, a contention is raised that an order passed by the Authorized Officer is not sustainable in the eye of law. Apart from that, it has been contended that while entertaining the objection submitted by respondent No.4 again no opportunity was extended to the appellants and this fact ought to have been properly noticed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition. There is no embargo of such a nature which may prevent the Court from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction. He would also submit that perusal of Rule 28 would indicate that election petition can be submitted only by person who is either qualified to be elected or to vote at the election to which such question refers and thereto within a period of 7 days and as such a bare perusal of the said provisions would clearly indicate that this remedy is not available to the appellants and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous, same deserves to be quashed. 4.3. It has been further contended by Mr. Rao, learned advocate for writ applicant that whenever any order is passed without hearing the parties affected, this Court can always exercise its jurisdiction and in almost similar situation, Courts have entertained the grievance and straight the mistake or error which has crept in and despite the fact that same was pressed into service, learned Single Judge has not considered the same in its proper prospective and hence, by referring to the judgments which are attached to the appeal compilation from pages 106 and 125, a request is made to grant the relief as prayed for in the petition and prays allowing the appeal. No other submissions have been made. 5. As against this, with a view to defend the order of Authorized Officer and also the order impugned in this appeal, Mr. B. S. Patel, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent authority has submitted that order passed by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with principles of law enunciated by catena of decisions including the decision delivered by full bench of this Court and as such view taken by the learned Single Judge is a possible view which may not be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Mr. Patel, learned senior counsel has also submitted that learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition has rightly averred at a conclusion that alternative and efficacious remedy is very much available to the appellants under Rule 28 of Rules, 1965 and said conclusion is well supported by the decision delivered by full bench of this Court and writ petition having disposed of on account of alternative efficacious remedy, learned Single Judge has rightly not gone into merits of the case since all permissible contentions can be raised before an authority examining such election petition. Hence, with a view to see that no prejudice may cause to the appellants, learned Single Judge has not examined the merits of the impugned order. 5.1. Mr. Patel, learned senior counsel to substantiate his contention has drawn the attention of this court to the observations made by the full bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited versus R. D. Rohit, Authorised Officer and Co-operative Officer (Marketing) reported in 2005 (0) AIJEL-HC 202701 and by referring to said observations contained in relevant paragraphs, it is reiterated that learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in relegating the appellants to an authority where every issue and all disputed facts can be adjudicated. Mr. Patel, learned senior counsel has also submitted that even point of jurisdiction also can be raised before an authority in view of settled position of law. Hence, no error of whatsoever nature is committed while disposing of the petition. He has further submitted that interpretation which is tried to be canvassed of the relevant rules by learned advocate appearing for the appellants is clearly misleading the provisions and to clarify the same, learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the chronology of events and the rules particularly Section 11 read with Rule 5 and Rule 6 and after referring to the said provisions, the learned senior counsel has pointed out that Rule 28 is sufficient safeguard to the appellants where every grievance can be raised and said authority can examine the validity of an order which is tried to be canvassed in this appeal. He would submit the issue of violation of natural justice also can be gone into in view of settled proposition of law and it is desirable in the interest of justice to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5.2. Considering the aforesaid situation, Mr. Patel, learned senior counsel has reiterated that appeal lacks merit. Hence, deserves to be dismissed more particularly when appellants are not remediless. 6. In re-joinder appellants’ counsel, Mr. B.T. Rao, has contended that appellants are not only on the issue of maintainability of Election Petition under Rule 28, but main emphasis is that Authorized Officer is not empowered to pass a successive order as if is invested with power of review, once the objections have already been dealt with at earlier point of time, to again examine same issue is without jurisdiction and as such, from that angle also case of the appellants may be considered. Mr. Bharat Rao has strenuously relied upon the decision attached to the appeal compilation on page 143 Annexure-L in the case of Mehsana District Co-operative Purchase and Sales Union Ltd.. v. Dhadhusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Sahkari Mandali Ltd., & Ors., reported in 1998 (1) GLH 170 and has pointed out that in past Division Bench had already dealt with similar issue and has expressed an opinion that it would not be open for the Authorized Officer to entertain second objection to the voters list and writ application was entertained. Yet another decision is also tried to be pressed into service in the case of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2013 (0) GLHEL-HC 229436 at Annexure-N on page 159 and has submitted that full bench of this Court had examined the issue of alternative remedy, but expression about exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 8(1A) has not been dealt with and as such, said issue as to whether Authorized Officer is empowered to entertain subsequent objections once having decided or not is still open and is basically covered by the aforementioned two decisions and as such, he has prayed for reliefs to be granted in the interest of justice. 6.1. Mr. 6.1. Mr. Bharat Rao, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has further submitted that, in the recent past also, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while examining the case of Ishawarbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL HC 243416 has also held that Court can entertain the petition once the question of jurisdiction would arise and in the said case also despite remedy being available under Rule 28, Division Bench has examined the issue and had granted relief as well and as such, Mr. Rao has submitted that all aforementioned three decisions are suggesting that when the Authorized Officer is passing an order without jurisdiction, it would be open for the writ court to examine the same. Hence, he has requested to grant the relief as prayed for. 7. Against these decisions having been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned senior advocate appearing for the authority has submitted that alternative remedy issue has to be emphatically impressed upon in view of the fact that every fact finding material can be examined before such authority and it is always open to the appellants to raise even point of jurisdiction to question the order of an Authorized Officer particularly, when the issue of alternative remedy is raised, particularly, in election matters, if available, it would be desirable in the interest of justice to relegate the concerned party to approach the same and writ court would not be an efficacious remedy where the scope of disputed question is not possible to be adjudicated upon. Hence, relying upon the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath & Ors., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 429 , Mr. Patel, learned senior advocate has submitted that appeal deserves to be dismissed, even with a clarification that point of jurisdiction can also be raised and examined by the concerned authority while dealing with the election petition. Hence, it has been further submitted by Mr. Patel, learned senior advocate has submitted that appeal deserves to be dismissed, even with a clarification that point of jurisdiction can also be raised and examined by the concerned authority while dealing with the election petition. Hence, it has been further submitted by Mr. Patel, learned senior advocate that decisions which are relied upon even last in line, as referred to above, in which, the learned Single Judge has examined the issue on merits and held that the petition can be entertained, but here the learned Single Judge has made it expressly clear that in view of specific remedy being available under the statute, merit has not been examined or gone into and hence he has requested that leaving it open for the appellants to raise all permissible contentions before the appropriate authority under Rule 28, present appeal may be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is questioned in the present appeal, it would clearly indicate that while disposing of the petition not only the facts and contentions have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge but also the legal position relevant to the issue has been gone into and after critical analysis of relevant provisions, a specific conclusion is arrived at. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that there is neither any perversity nor any irregularity in passing the order by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in the absence of such circumstances permitting this Court in appellate jurisdiction, would not be inclined to substitute the possible view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. We are also quite satisfied with the conclusion arrived at while disposing of the petition of not examining the merits of the impugned order since said issue also can be gone into by an authority to which the appellants may approach. Hence, we see no error in the said order questioned before us. 10. We have even independently examined the said issue relating to alternative and efficacious remedy available and find that conjoint effect of the relevant rules would clearly indicate that possible view of the learned Single Judge is not erroneous rather said view is well supported by the decision delivered by full bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra). We deem it proper to extract and quote hereunder the relevant paragraphs from the said decision:- "4. In view of the conflicting judgments of the Division Benches of this Court wherein some of the Division Benches had taken a view that the inclusion or non- inclusion of the names in the voters' list cannot be made a ground in an election petition, while the other view is that preparation of the voters' list which includes deletion of the names in the voters' list being integral, the questions can be raised in an election petition under rule 28, the Division Bench felt that the matters need hearing by a larger Bench to settle all the disputes once and for all. Hence this group of petitions has been referred to us to answer the following questions: I. Whether a person whose name is not included in the voters' list can avail provisions of rule 28 of the rules by filing election petition ? II. Whether the remedy under rule 28 can be termed to be efficacious remedy ? III. Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in an election process challenging an order issued by the Election Officers i.e. inclusion or deletion of the names of the voters in the voters' list ? 25. The Division Bench of this Court in a decision rendered in the case of Kanubhai Chhaganbhai Patel v. Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance, Gandhinagar and Ors. ( 2004 (3) GLR 2718 (supra), rightly held that the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Mehsana Dist.Coop.Purchase and Sales Union Ltd. (supra) ( 1998 (1) GLH 170 , could have referred the matter to the Larger Bench if at all while taking a different view than the view expressed in the earlier two decisions of the Division Benches. The said Division Bench, though referred to those two decisions of the earlier Division Benches but took absolute contrary view than the view expressed by the earlier two decisions. ( 1986 GLH 430 & 1988 (2) GLR 1060 ) (supra). The said Division Bench, though referred to those two decisions of the earlier Division Benches but took absolute contrary view than the view expressed by the earlier two decisions. ( 1986 GLH 430 & 1988 (2) GLR 1060 ) (supra). The Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1959 SC 519 ), observed that – "where a Full Bench of three Judges is inclined to take a view contrary to that of another Full Bench of equal strength, the better course would be to constitute a larger bench". 26. We may make it clear that by interpreting Rule 6 and 28 of the Rules, we are not enlarging the scope of the legislation or intention of the legislator nor recasting, rewriting or reframing the legislation. We are conscious of the fact that the Court has no power to legislate. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Ors v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Ors., reported in AIR 1998 SC 1429 cited by Mr B S Patel will be of no assistance to him. 32. We have gone through the aforesaid decisions closely. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the principles laid down therein. The sum and substance of those decisions apply to a situation where this Court would like to entertain a petition on the foundation that the order is ultra vires and/or without jurisdiction and/or is violating principles of natural justice. Thus, in an exceptional case, this Court can exercise the power of judicial review, which is a basic structure of the situation in such cases more particularly, in the election process. One thing is clear that this Court ordinarily would not like to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution when the process of election has been set in motion even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. 32.1. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swamy (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Ors. 32.1. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swamy (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2001) 8 SCC 509 , while dealing with the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, held that in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society where the election process having been set in motion, the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It was held that the proper remedy is by way of election petition before the Election Tribunal. 33. In view of the above discussion, we answer the Reference as under: i. A person whose name is not included in the voters' list can avail benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing Election Petition. ii. As the authority under Rule 28 has wide power to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the election is set aside, remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy. iii. Even though a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable though alternative remedy is available, the powers are to be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstances such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or ex facie without jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules." 11. Keeping in view of the aforesaid binding decision of the full bench of this Court, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Keeping in view of the aforesaid binding decision of the full bench of this Court, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. At this stage, we may clarify that in view of the settled proposition of law, when statue has created remedy to redress grievance, it is always permissible for a person while invoking same to raise all permissible contentions in accordance with law, we also clarify here that since specific remedy under the statute is available as indicated above, the issue of jurisdiction namely whether authorized officer was justified in entertaining objections also can be raised before said authority and we expect that same will be examined by such authority in its proper perspective and record a finding. Since learned Single Judge has also opined similarly, nothing on this issue is tried to be as raised before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on it and leaving it open for the appellants to raise the same before appropriate authority, if they choose to do so under Rule 28, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. Further, it is not possible to arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether opportunity was given or not to the appellants since it is bare assertion by way of averments and as such, it is not possible for this Court to safely conclude as to whether appellants were given any opportunity or not by Authorized Officer while arriving at a decision and as such, normally, fact finding forum which has already been created under the statute would adjudicate such disputes on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before such authority and as such, it is apt and appropriate not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to accept such contention of the appellants more particularly, when same was not even canvassed before the learned Single Judge. Hence, we deem it proper to observe that the appellants would be at liberty to raise all possible contentions and since said authority has to examine such issues. We hereby make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion even on the issue relating to effect of Rule 8 (1A), and it would be open for the appellants to canvass the same before the competent authority. 12. We hereby make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion even on the issue relating to effect of Rule 8 (1A), and it would be open for the appellants to canvass the same before the competent authority. 12. A conjoint effect of the observations made by full bench (supra) and in view of the effect of the rules, contentions raised by the learned advocates are of no assistance since said issue has already been decided by the full bench of this Court (supra) and keeping in view the binding effect of it, we are not inclined to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal, as same being devoid of merits. We dispose of the same by following ORDER : (i) Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed by confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.18140 of 2021. (ii) We also reiterate that since present appeal is disposed of on a limited ground of availability of alternative remedy to the appellants, we express no opinion on merits and clarify that it would be open for the appellants to raise all permissible contentions before an authority as indicated above and we expect that while dealing with the said proceedings if appellants avail the same, such authority shall independently consider the same without being influenced by the disposal of present proceedings. (iii) Accordingly, rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (iv) Costs made easy. (v) All pending applications stand consigned to records.