JUDGMENT : (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) 1. Both these appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise out of a common CAV judgement dated 02.08.2022, by which, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the orders dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Authorized Officer – respondent no.4 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner against the inclusion of the names of the respondent Nos.5 to 28 from voters’ list of traders’ constituency as well as cooperative marketing societies’ constituency. In other words, by quashing and setting aside the orders, the private respondents whose names are included in the voters’ list by the impugned orders was set aside. Aggrieved by this, the private respondents – the beneficiary voters are before us challenging the aforesaid judgement. 2. Facts before the learned Single Judge. In order to avoid duplication, the facts set out by the learned Single Judge in the judgement under challenge are reproduced and read as under: 2.1 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. According to which, preliminary voter's’ 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. 2.2 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. 2.3 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. 2.3 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. 2.4 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. 2.5 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 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. By exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge vide the common CAV judgment, after setting aside the orders of the Authorized Officer which included the names of the appellants in the voters’ list, held thus: “10. 5 to 28 have been continued in the voters’ list.” 3. By exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge vide the common CAV judgment, after setting aside the orders of the Authorized Officer which included the names of the appellants in the voters’ list, held thus: “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.” 4. Mr.Bharat Rao learned counsel for the original private respondents – appellants herein, made the following submissions: 4.1 That the petition ought to have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of alternative remedy available under Rule 28 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1965. 4.2 That the appellants had applied for relevant licenses under the category of traders’ constituency and cooperative marketing societies’ constituency on 10.08.2021. The applications were decided and licenses were granted on 20.09.2021. 4.2 That the appellants had applied for relevant licenses under the category of traders’ constituency and cooperative marketing societies’ constituency on 10.08.2021. The applications were decided and licenses were granted on 20.09.2021. There was therefore a delay in granting such licenses and therefore delay caused at the instance of the District Registrar would not and should not weigh against them for their non inclusion in the voters’ list. As, the appellants had applied for licenses much before the date of the declaration of the election, the authorized officer by the impugned orders, had rightly included the names of the appellants in the voters’ list. 4.3 That the inclusion of the appellants’ name in the voters’ list and the communication dated 04.10.2021 with outward no.360 of 2021 and 363 of 2021 is absolutely just and legal and therefore, especially when the petitions were barred by alternative remedy, the learned Single Judge rather than relegating them before an Election Tribunal entertained the petition. 4.4 Reading Section 11(1)(ii) of The Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963, Mr.Rao would submit that the Section deals with the qualification of contesting of elections and not for the purposes of qualification for being a voter. He would therefore submit that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the original petitioner were misconceived. 4.5 That though several decisions were cited before the learned Single Judge including a judgement of the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited vs. R.D. Rohit, Authorized Officer and Co- operative Officer (Marketing) reported in 2006(1) GCD 211 , without discussing the objection with regard to alternative remedy, the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions. 4.6 In support of his submissions, in addition to the decision of the Full Bench in case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra), Mr.Rao would also rely on the decision in the case of Mohmed Javid Abdulmutlib Pirzada vs. State of Gujarat rendered by this court on 06.02.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 555 of 2022 and allied matters. 4.7 Mr. Rao would submit that when the question arises of inclusion or exclusion of a name in the voters’ list, in light of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) in absence of an extraordinary situation, a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained. 4.7 Mr. Rao would submit that when the question arises of inclusion or exclusion of a name in the voters’ list, in light of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) in absence of an extraordinary situation, a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained. He would therefore submit that when there is a specific case law to suggest that the remedy available to a voter whose name is excluded or to an objector against an inclusion of a voter in the voters’ list, can be a subject matter of challenge before the Election Tribunal, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. 4.8 Mr.Rao would further submit that whenever the process of election starts Courts should not interfere with the process of election. The learned Single Judge while passing the directions, rather than setting aside the entire elections, committed an error in directing the respondents to start from the stage of Rule 8(1) of the APMC Rules. He would therefore submit that admittedly when the petition was barred by alternative remedy, entertaining of such petitions was bad. 4.9 Mr.Rao would rely on the following other decisions: (I) In case of Valiyampura Vibhagiya Group Khetpedash Kharid Vechan ane Processing Sahkari Mandli Ltd. v. Director reported in 2020 JX (Guj) 829 (II) In case of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited v. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 JX (Guj) 946 (III) In case of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited v. State of Gujarat rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.569 of 2016 and allied appeal (IV) In case of Laxmibai v. Collector, Nanded and others reported in (2020) 12 SCC 186 (V) In case of Shree Nani Marad Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Thro Its Chairman v. State of Gujarat through Secretary reported in 2011 JX(Guj) 1137 (VI) In case of Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath and others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 429 (VII) In case of Jaganathpuri Cooperative Service Society Limited v. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (3) GLR 2378 (VIII) In case of Mohmed Javid Abdulmutlib Pirzada v. State of Gujarat rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.555 of 2022 5. Mr.Dipan Desai learned advocate appearing for the respondents – original petitioners would make the following submissions: 5.1 He would submit that the appellants are not eligible to be included in the voters’ list. Reading Section 11 of the Act, Mr.Desai would submit that in order to be eligible to be a voter, a trader must fulfill three conditions viz. (i) it must have obtained a license, (ii) it must have traded in conformity with the terms and conditions of the license in the previous financial year and (iii) no fees payable by them should have remained outstanding. 5.2 He would submit that in the present case, it is apparent that the appellants have not satisfied the second requirement i.e. trading in the previous financial year as, their licenses have only been granted on 20/21.09.2021. He would therefore submit that the appellants have never traded at all in the previous financial years and therefore cannot be said to be eligible to be included in the voters’ list. 5.3 Mr.Desai would further submit that by the impugned order dated 30.09.2021, the Authorized Officer rejected the objections without assigning any reasons. In fact, after the impugned order, the Authorized Officer issued final voters’ list bearing outward no.360 of 2021 informing that in the final voters’ list the name of the appellants is included. Thereafter, vide outward no.361 of 2021, a final voters’ list was issued deleting the respondent no.2 to 28 from the voters’ list once again by a notification of outward no.363 of 2021. The final voters’ list dated 360 of 2021 was revived. 5.4 Mr.Desai would further submit that on one single day i.e. 09.11.2021, the Authorized Officer addressed two separate letters to the Election Officer wherein, on one hand he forwarded all the final voters’ list referred herein above and in the other letter, dated 09.11.2021 the Authorized Officer only forward the final voters’ list bearing outward no.360 of 2021 which included the name of the petitioners. 5.5Answering the submission of Mr.Rao learned counsel for the appellant with regard to availability of an alternative remedy, Mr.Desai would submit that when it is found that a fraud has been committed in the election process, it is always open for this Court to exercise the discretionary remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5.5Answering the submission of Mr.Rao learned counsel for the appellant with regard to availability of an alternative remedy, Mr.Desai would submit that when it is found that a fraud has been committed in the election process, it is always open for this Court to exercise the discretionary remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that it is now well settled by a judgement of a Division Bench of this Court that “relevant date for a voter to become eligible to vote in the elections of the market committee, is the date on which the Authorized Officer is to be communicated the names. He would submit that on the facts of the present case, the elections were declared by notification dated 13.08.2021 and therefore, granting of licenses to the appellants post this date i.e. 20.09.2021 would not entitle the appellants to be included in the voters’ list. Mr.Desai also cited decisions of this Court which observed that petitions under Article 226 can be entertained though an alternative remedy is available. He has relied upon the following decisions: (a) In case of Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference reported in 2023 (12) SCR 68 ; (b) In case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari vs State of Gujarat and Ors reported in 2007 (3) GLH 57; (c) In case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya vs. Director – Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance and Others reported in 2013(2) GLH 157. (d) In case of Mahendra Maganbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat reported in 2014 JX(Guj) 700. 6. When we heard the appeals, none appeared on behalf of the State Government and we therefore decided these appeals after considering the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and also after taking into consideration the affidavits filed by the State on 23.11.2021, one by Shri M.T.Zala, Assistant Cooperative Officer and the other reply of the same date by one Shri J.B.Ravaliya working as Cooperative Officer (Marketing), Devbhumi Dwarka. 7. In order to appreciate the legality and validity of the common CAV judgment of the learned Single Judge, certain important dates and events which are relevant for deciding the controversy are reproduced as under: Date Particulars 13.08.2021 Elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya came to be declared by the Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat State. 7. In order to appreciate the legality and validity of the common CAV judgment of the learned Single Judge, certain important dates and events which are relevant for deciding the controversy are reproduced as under: Date Particulars 13.08.2021 Elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya came to be declared by the Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat State. 04.09.2021 Preliminary voters list was published, wherein as far as traders’ constituency and co-operative marketing societies’ constituency are concerned, there were only 14 license holders and therefore, the said 14 license holders were included in the preliminary voters list of traders’ constituency and cooperative marketing societies’ constituency. 21.09.2021 The District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Devbhumi Dwarka issued unified license to 24 traders and 6 marketing societies after the declaration of election and after the publication of preliminary voters list. 22.09.2021 The said 24 traders and 6 co-operative marketing societies which are granted licenses on 21.09.2021 were included in the provisional voters list published on 22.09.2021. 29.09.2021 The Respondent no.1 herein – orig. petitioner herein filed objection against the wrongful inclusion of 24 traders and 6 co-operative marking societies as they have acquired qualification after the declaration of election and therefore, not entitled to be included in the voters list. 30.09.2021 The Authorized Officer without affording any opportunity of hearing to the objector rejected the objection by flimsy and unreasoned order. 04.10.2021 The Authorized Officer published three final voters list namely bearing outward Nos.360, 361 and 363 of 2021 so far as traders’ constituency is concerned and as far as co-operative marketing societies’ is concerned, he published three final voters list bearing outward No.360, 362 and 363 of 2021. The order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Authorized Officer was challenged by the Respondent no.1 herein - original petitioner, by way of Special Civil Application No.15879 of 2021 so far as traders’ constituency is concerned and so far as co-operative marketing societies’ is concerned, the respondent no.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.15883 of 2021 challenging the order dated 30.09.2021. The order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Authorized Officer was challenged by the Respondent no.1 herein - original petitioner, by way of Special Civil Application No.15879 of 2021 so far as traders’ constituency is concerned and so far as co-operative marketing societies’ is concerned, the respondent no.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.15883 of 2021 challenging the order dated 30.09.2021. By way of amendment in Special Civil Application No.15879 of 2021, challenge was made to the Notification dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward No.360 and 363 of 2021 so far as it includes 24 traders in the traders’ constituency and as far as co-operative marketing societies’ constituency by way of amendment in Special Civil Application No.15883 of 2021, challenge was made to Notification dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward Nos.360 and 362 of 2021 so far as it includes 6 co-operative marketing societies in the co-operative marketing societies’ constituency. Therefore, in Special Civil Application No.15879 of 2021, challenge was specifically made to the inclusion of 24 traders in the traders’ constituency and as far as in Special Civil Application No.15883 of 2021, challenge was made to the inclusion of six co-operative marketing societies’ constituency as in both the cases, the authorized officer had no jurisdiction or no authority in law to include persons who have acquired eligibility after the declaration of elections. 20.10.2021 The learned Single Judge issued notice in Special Civil Application No.15879 of 2021 and in Special Civil Application No.15883 of 2021. 9.11.2021 The Authorized Officer had written letter to the Election Officer dated 09.11.2021 that final voters list bearing outward No.360 of 2021 shall be considered as final in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court dated 29.10.2021. (however, factually there was no such order by the Hon’ble High Court directing the Authorized Officer that outward No.360 of 2021 shall be considered as final) 18.11.2021 The learned Single Judge after hearing of parties, directed that as far as traders’ constituency is concerned, the votes of 24 traders who are respondent Nos.5 to 28 in Special Civil Application No.15879 of 2021, were permitted to cast their votes however, their votes were kept in separate sealed cover. Similarly in in Special Civil Application No.15883 of 2021, six co-operative marketing societies which were respondent Nos.5 to 10 in the said petition, they were permitted to cast their votes however, their votes were kept in separate sealed cover and the counting and result of the aforesaid constituencies, i.e. traders’ constituency and co-operative marketing societies’ constituency, were permitted not to be declared and the election of the aforesaid two constituencies only was subject matter to the outcome of the said petitions. The learned Single Judge further directed that the Authorized Officer shall file affidavit, clarifying the publication of different voters list dated 04.10.2021 bearing outward No.360 of 2021, 361 of 2021, 362 of 2021 and 363 of 2021. The Authorized Officer was also directed to explain the issuance of communication dated 09.11.2021. 22.11.2021 The election of all three constituencies were held and as far as agriculturist constituency is concerned, the voting has taken place and the result was declared and the said result has never been challenged till date. Further, as far as trader’s constituency and cooperative marketing societies’ constituency, the respondent Nos.5 to 28 of in Special Civil Application No.15879 of 2021 and respondent Nos.5 to 10 of in Special Civil Application No. 15883 of 2021 were permitted to cast their votes, but their voters were kept in separate sealed cover and the counting and the result was not declared in view of the interim order passed by this Hon’ble Court. 23.11.2021 Shri J.B. Ravaliya, Co-operative Officer, Marketing filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraph No.5 it is stated that the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Devbhoomi Dwarka had intimated the Authorized Officer that the final voters list bearing outward No.360 of 2021 shall be considered to be final as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court and asked the Authorized Officer to undertake further process of election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhatiya. It is further stated in paragraph No.6 that therefore, the Authorized Officer addressed the above referred communication dated 09.11.2021. In paragraph No.7 it is stated that he has misunderstood and misinterpreted order dated 29.10.2021 of the Hon’ble Court as he is not well conversant with English language and relied upon oral instructions given to him by the District Registrar and he tendered unconditional apology for the same. In paragraph No.7 it is stated that he has misunderstood and misinterpreted order dated 29.10.2021 of the Hon’ble Court as he is not well conversant with English language and relied upon oral instructions given to him by the District Registrar and he tendered unconditional apology for the same. 23.11.2021 Shri M.T.Zala, working as Assistant Cooperative Officer has filed an affidavit on 23.11.2021, wherein in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, he has stated that advocate Mr. Jitubhai Thakkar advised him that final voters list bearing outward Nos.361 of 2021 and 362 of 2021 are erroneous and not in accordance with law and therefore, on the basis of the said advise, final voters list bearing outward No.360 of 2021 was re-affirmed. In paragraph No.8, he has tendered unconditional apology and stated that he should not have relied upon the advice of advocate Jitubhai Thakkar and should have exercise his own discretion and understanding while discharging his duties as an Authorized Officer. 02.08.2022 Special Civil Application No.15879 of 2021 and Special Civil Application No.15883 of 2021 were allowed by this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court set aside the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Authorized Officer and the voters list bearing outward Nos.360, 361, 362 and 363 of 2021 are also set aside. It is specifically directed by the Hon’ble Court in paragraph No.11 that the election process with respect to traders’ constituency and co-operative marketing societies’ constituency shall be conducted afresh from the stage of receiving the objection under Rule 8(1) of the Rules. .08.2022 Present LPA preferred. 05.09.2022 Hon’ble Division Bench grants stay against the order of Ld. Single Judge. 8. We may note, based on these dates and events, that the elections for the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhatiya was declared on 13.08.2021. 9. Though the appellants had applied for the respective licenses on 10.08.2021, such licenses were granted to them on 20.09.2021. The election program of the Market Committee reads as under: “The program of General Election of Agricultural Produce Market Committee-Bhatiya, Ta. Kalyanpur, Dist.Devbhumi Dwarka. Sr. No. Details of program Date (1) (2) (3) 1 The declaration of Election- 40 days before as per Section 10(2) 24/08/2021 2 The instruction to be given to the Authorized officer to prepare the electoral roll. Kalyanpur, Dist.Devbhumi Dwarka. Sr. No. Details of program Date (1) (2) (3) 1 The declaration of Election- 40 days before as per Section 10(2) 24/08/2021 2 The instruction to be given to the Authorized officer to prepare the electoral roll. 24/08/2021 2(A) The date of sending the electoral roll to the Authorized officer (Section 7) 31/08/2021 3 The date of calling primary publication of primary electoral roll. -within 7 days [Section 7(2)] 04/09/2021 4 The last date of submitting objection for the rectification in the primary electoral roll within 14 days from the primary publication. [Section 8(1)] 18/09/2021 4(A) The re-publication of the amended electoral roll after submission of the rectification, instruction, objections against the primary electoral roll [Section 9(1)(a)] 22/09/2021 4(B) The last date of submitting the objection for rectification in the republished amended primary electoral roll. [Section 8(1)(b)] 29/09/2021 5 The final publication of the electoral roll [Section 8(2)] 04/10/2021 6 The date of giving the nomination forms [Section 10(2)] 09/11/2021 7 The primary publication of the nomination Forms (Section 14) 09/11/2021 8 The checking of the nomination forms (Section 15) 10/11/2021 9 The date of withdrawing the nomination form. [Section 17(1) ] 13/11/2021 10 Final publication of candidates [Section 17(2)] 13/11/2021 11 The date of voting 22/11/2021 12 Date of counting of votes 22/11/2021 13 Declaration of the result of election (Section 21) Immediately on completion of counting of votes 10.What is apparent from these dates is that 31.08.2021 was the date when an electoral roll was to be sent to the Authorized Officer. This was in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules which indicates that every cooperative society shall communicate the full names of members to the Authorized Officers before such date as the Director may by order fix in that behalf. 11.What is evident from the facts on hand is that in this case by a letter dated 31.08.2021, the Authorized Officer received a letter from the APMC that there are 14 societies which are holding licenses in the Market Committee and there is no other society or trader / cooperative marketing society which is holding a license. Based on this communication of the APMC, on 04.09.2021, a preliminary voters’ list was published where only 14 societies were included in the traders/cooperative marketing societies constituencies. On 20.09.2021, on the appellants applied for licenses. Based on this communication of the APMC, on 04.09.2021, a preliminary voters’ list was published where only 14 societies were included in the traders/cooperative marketing societies constituencies. On 20.09.2021, on the appellants applied for licenses. Their applications were considered on 21.09.2021 and on 22.09.2021 based on these licenses, their names were included in the voters’ list by the respondent no.4-Authorized Officer. 12.The petitioners filed objections to the wrongful and fraudulent inclusions of the appellants in the voters’ list pointing out to the authorized officer that no trader or a society can be included in a voters’ list after the declaration of the election. Without affording an opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reasons, by the impugned order which was even not communicated to the original petitioners, their objections were rejected. 13.What is also evident to make this exercise questionable, is that the Authorized Officer flip-flopped inasmuch as, by a letter bearing outward no.360 of 2021, he included the appellants’ names in the voters’ list. Subsequently, by a letter bearing outward no.361 of 2021, he deleted their names and once again by a letter bearing outward no.363 of 2021, he restored the names. Not only this, by two separate letters dated 09.11.2021, the Authorized Officer informed the Election Officer; by one letter sending all the three lists to him and by the second letter, he only sent the list bearing outward no.360 of 2021 including the appellant’s name in the voters’ list. It is in the background of these glaring facts, that the learned Single Judge had to intervene and observe thus: “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. 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 subrule (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. 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 (2016) 2 SCC 653 in case of D N Jeevaraj and ors. vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnakata and ors observed thus: “42. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [9] 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. 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. 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 as voters’ and the same was reaffirmed by communication No. 363 of 2021. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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.” 14.Section 11 of the APMC Act which provides for constitution of Market Committees in sub-section (ii) of Section (1) provides that every Market Committee consists of the following members viz. four members to be elected in the prescribed manner from amongst themselves by the traders holding general licences [who have traded in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the licence in the previous financial year and the fees payable by them has not remained unpaid]. Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act reads as under: 11. Constitution of market committee. (1)Every market committee shall consist of the following members, namely:- (ii)four members to be elected in the prescribed manner from amongst themselves by the traders holding general licences [who have traded in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the licence in the previous financial year and the fees payable by them has not remained unpaid] 15.Submission of the learned Counsel Mr.Rao that this provision applies only for the qualification to contest elections is misconceived because in order to be eligible to contest elections, the members amongst themselves have to hold the qualifications prescribed. In other words, not only has a trader in order to be eligible to be included in the voters’ list, must have obtained a license, but also must have traded in conformity with the terms and conditions of the license in the previous financial years and no fees payable by them should have remained unpaid. In other words, not only has a trader in order to be eligible to be included in the voters’ list, must have obtained a license, but also must have traded in conformity with the terms and conditions of the license in the previous financial years and no fees payable by them should have remained unpaid. 16.The learned Single Judge has relied on the provisions of Rule 8 of the APMC Rules. Rules 8(1) and 8(1-A) and 8(2) read as under: “RULE 8 - Provisional and 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 subrule (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. The final list shall be prepared at least thirty days before the date fixed for the nomination of candidates for the election.” 17.What is evident from the affidavit which also the learned Single Judge has reproduced, is that the Authorized Officer has taken the decision that the inclusion of the appellants on the voters’ list was at the instance of an advocate Mr.Jitubhai Thakkar. Obviously therefore, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court as set out in para 9.15 of the judgement of the learned Single Judge, it is found that the authority i.e. the Authorized Officer in whom the discretion was vested did not act independently and passed the order, however, the inclusion was based on the advice of an advocate. To compound things further, on 04.10.2021, the Authorized Officer released three final voters’ lists by different numbered notifications of the same date i.e. 04.10.2021. One to include the appellants’ names in the voters’ list, second of deleting their names and once again third restoring their names in the final voters’ list. By addressing two separate letters dated 09.11.2021 to the Election Officer, firstly he sent all the three lists to the Election Officer and by the second letter, he sent only the list which notified the inclusion of the appellant. 18.It is in the background of these facts, that the learned Single Judge observed that it was a very sorry state of affairs. It is also in this background that we need to consider the rival contentions as to whether it was open for the learned Single Judge to exercise the discretion that learned Single Judge did in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India rather than relegating the petitioners to a remedy under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules. True it is that a full bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) has categorically observed that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable though alternative remedy is available and the powers are to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances and that the exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters’ list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge’s entertaining of the writ petition though, by the judgement cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant, normally, as held by the Courts once the process of the election starts, no petition ought to be entertained. 19.Here is a case where the Authorized Officer has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment and where once the election program was declared on 13.08.2021 and as per the election program as per Rule 8(1) of the Rules, the APMC, Dhatiya, had sent the electoral roll to the Authorized Officer on 31.08.2021 and preliminary voters’ list was published on 04.09.2021. Rule 8(1A) envisaged applications raising objections and after deciding the objections, a final list has to be prepared making amendments. We need to consider in such circumstances, keeping in view the provisions of Section 11 the ‘relevant date’ which is to be the date for a voter to become eligible to vote in an election. As per the decision in the case of Kalubhai Akabari (supra), the relevant date for determining the eligibility of a person for inclusion in the voters’ list be the date by which the Authorized Officer is to be communicated the names as indicated in sub-rule (1) of rule 7. Paras 13, 18, and 31 to 35 of the judgment read as under: “13.There can be no dispute about the fact that the authority granting registration of co-operative societies falling under clause (i) or clause (iii) are different from the authority granting licenses to traders falling under clause (ii). As regards cooperative marketing society under clause (iii), while its registration is to be done under the Cooperative Societies Act, it will have to obtain a general licence from APMC. As regards cooperative marketing society under clause (iii), while its registration is to be done under the Cooperative Societies Act, it will have to obtain a general licence from APMC. However, the question still remains – which date may be considered as the “relevant date” for determining the eligibility of a person for inclusion in the list/s of voters for the purpose of elections to APMC. 18.In our view, therefore, the relevant date for determining the eligibility of a person for inclusion in the voters' list would be the date by which the Authorized Officer is to be communicated the names as indicated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, that is to say before that date - (i) a co-operative society registered under the Co- operative Societies Act for dispensing agricultural credit must have been registered as a cooperative society and must also have commenced the activity of dispensing agricultural credit. (ii) a trader who has been granted license by the APMC to carry on business as a trader in the market area must have commenced business as a trader. (iii) a co-operative marketing society registered as such under the Co- operative Societies Act and having obtained a general licence from APMC must also have commenced its business of marketing. 31.As far as elections to APMC are concerned, the challenge to registration of a co-operative society falling under clause (i) or clause (iii) of Section 11(1) can only be entertained by the appellate/revisional forum expressly created under Sections 153 and 155 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Similarly, challenge to legality and validity of a general license issued to a trader falling under clause (ii) of Section 11(1) can only be examined by the forum expressly created under Section 27 of the APMC Act. The Election Tribunal constituted under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules can, therefore, not entertain any challenge to legality and validity of grant of registration to a co-operative society or grant or renewal of a general license to a trader. The Election Tribunal constituted under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules can, therefore, not entertain any challenge to legality and validity of grant of registration to a co-operative society or grant or renewal of a general license to a trader. In our view, the decision of the Apex Court in Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 does not lend any support to the respondents' contention, but on the contrary buttresses the view taken by us in the judgment dated 11.5.2007 that the Election Tribunal under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to legality or validity of a general license granted to a trader because Section 27 of the Act provides a specific forum and machinery for deciding all such disputes regarding grant or renewal of a license. In our view, therefore, the judgment dated 11.5.2007 in the case of APMC, Kalawad (Special Civil Application No. 6482 of 2007) does not require any reconsideration. 32.As regards the decision of the Full Bench, we have already considered the same in paragraphs 27 to 29 of our judgment dated 11.5.2007. For the reasons already indicated therein, and particularly in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pundlik vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (7) SCC 181 , the High Court may in the facts of a given case entertain a petition challenging the legality of the list of voters, even after commencement of the election process, if the list is not prepared in accordance with law. We are conscious of the fact that ordinarily this Court is not to entertain petitions after commencement of the election process. However, in the instant case, we have not entertained any disputed question of fact. We are conscious of the fact that ordinarily this Court is not to entertain petitions after commencement of the election process. However, in the instant case, we have not entertained any disputed question of fact. In fact, the petitioners' challenge to the registration of the co- operative society is not entertained by us as machinery for entertaining such challenge is specifically created under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and for the purposes of these petitions, we proceed on the demurer that the registration of the three co-operative societies in question was granted in accordance with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act Even proceeding on that basis, we have found that the three co-operative societies had not been registered either on the date on which the Director issued the notification dated 23.3.2007 fixing the date of election or even on 14.4.2007 i.e. the relevant date by which date the names were required to be communicated to the Authorized Officer under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the APMC Rules for preparation of three separate lists of voters. 33.As regards various other decisions sought to be relied upon by Mr Mangukia, we do not think that it is necessary to deal with the same because except one, they were rendered prior to the decisions of the Apex Court in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar, 2000 (8) SCC 216 and in Pundlik vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (7) SCC 181 . The decision in Avtarsingh Hit vs. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee & Ors. 2006 (8) SCC 487 does not lay down a new principle but merely reiterates the general principle recognised in the above decisions, which provide for the exceptions to the general principle. 34.As regards the other submissions of Mr Mangukia, we do not find any merit in any of them. 2006 (8) SCC 487 does not lay down a new principle but merely reiterates the general principle recognised in the above decisions, which provide for the exceptions to the general principle. 34.As regards the other submissions of Mr Mangukia, we do not find any merit in any of them. 34.1 Apart from the fact that the alternative plea raises a pure question of law, the foundation for the alternative plea of the petitioners is to be found in para 4(c) of the petition, which reads as under :- “4(c) It is submitted that once the election programme is declared, the names of the members of the new society cannot be included and, therefore, the District Registrar in another case vide communication dated 30.3.2007 at Annexure-F to this petition, has stated that once the election programme is declared and published, the registration has to take place only after the final list is published.” The affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant District Registrar of Cooperative Societies merely states - “With reference to para No.4C of the petition, I offer no remarks.” 34.2 The petitioners moved this Court on 1.5.2007 both for challenging the registration granted in favour of the respondentCo-operative societies on 21.4.2007 and inclusion of their names in the voters' list published on 21.4.2007. It is the case of the respondent authorities that challenge to registration of Cooperative Societies Act can only be made before the forum under the Cooperative Societies Act. The other plea is a pure question of law and the respondent-authorities had no answer to offer in their affidavit. 34.3 The Director had authorised the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Junagadh also exercising the powers of the Deputy Director, to exercise the powers of the authorized officer under the election Rules. The District Registrar is joined as respondent No.4. 34.4 By interim order dated 11.5.2007, it was clarified that if the names of members of managing committee of respondent No.5- Societies are included in the final list of voters, such inclusion shall be subject to the result of the petitions. It was not necessary to formally challenge the final list because the petition as originally framed did contain a prayer for excluding them from the list of voters. All the respondents including respondent No.5 were given full opportunity to contest the petition and to deal with the controversies decided in this judgment. 35. It was not necessary to formally challenge the final list because the petition as originally framed did contain a prayer for excluding them from the list of voters. All the respondents including respondent No.5 were given full opportunity to contest the petition and to deal with the controversies decided in this judgment. 35. To sum up then, our conclusions are as under :- I. “The relevant date” for determining the eligibility of a person for inclusion in the voters' list for elections to APMC is the date on which the Authorized Officer is to be communicated the names as indicated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the APMC Rules, 1965, that is to say, before that date - (i) a co-operative society must have been registered under the Cooperative Societies Act as a cooperative society for dispensing agricultural credit and must also have commenced the activity of dispensing agricultural credit. (ii) a trader who has been granted license by the APMC to carry on business as a trader in the market area must have commenced business as a trader. (iii) a co-operative marketing society registered as such under the Co- operative Societies Act and having obtained a general licence from APMC must also have commenced its business of marketing. II. The only exception to the above general rule is to be found in Rule 6. Hence, if a person, whose name was entered in the list of voters, has ceased to hold the capacity in which his name was entered in such list, such person shall not be qualified to vote at the election to which the list of voters relates. III. To be eligible for inclusion in the list of voters for elections to APMC, - (i) A co-operative society must have obtained registration under the Co- operative Societies Act for dispensing agricultural credit before the date on which the Director has fixed the date of elections to APMC (i.e. the date of declaration of elections). (ii) A person must have obtained from APMC a general license for trader before the date of declaration of elections. (iii) A co-operative marketing society must have obtained its registration under the Co-operative Societies Act and a general license from APMC before the date of declaration of elections. IV. (ii) A person must have obtained from APMC a general license for trader before the date of declaration of elections. (iii) A co-operative marketing society must have obtained its registration under the Co-operative Societies Act and a general license from APMC before the date of declaration of elections. IV. Challenge to the legality and validity of registration of a society under the Co- operative Societies Act can only be entertained by the forum under Sections 153 and 155 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and not by the Election Tribunal constituted under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules, 1965. V. Challenge to the legality and validity of a license issued by APMC can only be entertained by the concerned forum under Section 27 of the Gujarat APMC Act, 1963. VI. The question whether a co-operative society commenced the activity of dispensing agricultural credit before the relevant date, whether a trader possessing general license from APMCcommenced the business of trading before the relevant date or whether a co-operative marketing society possessing general license from APMC commenced its business of marketing before the relevant date are questions of fact which the Authorized Officer has jurisdiction to decide under Rules 7(2) and 8 of the APMC Rules, 1965 and the Election Tribunal under Rule 28 also has the jurisdiction to examine these questions. ORDER Since the respondent-societies were granted registration under the Cooperative Societies Act after the declaration of election program and after “the relevant date” as discussed in the judgment, the office bearers of these societies were not eligible to be included in the voters' list and, therefore, cannot be permitted to vote at the ensuing elections to APMC, Junagadh. It is, however, clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy about challenge to registrations granted in favour of the respondent-societies and we have decided the matter on the basis that the respondent-societies were registered under the Cooperative Societies Act on 21.4.2007. The petitions are accordingly allowed. The respondent-authorities shall not permit the members of the managing committees of the three respondent-societies i.e. (i) Sardar Patel Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Village Choki (Sorath), Taluka & Dist. Junagadh, (ii) Sardar Patel Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Village Mandalik, Taluka & Dist. Junagadh and (iii) Sardar Patel Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Village Nana Mota -Avatadia Taluka & Dist. The respondent-authorities shall not permit the members of the managing committees of the three respondent-societies i.e. (i) Sardar Patel Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Village Choki (Sorath), Taluka & Dist. Junagadh, (ii) Sardar Patel Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Village Mandalik, Taluka & Dist. Junagadh and (iii) Sardar Patel Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Village Nana Mota -Avatadia Taluka & Dist. Junagadh, to vote at the ensuing elections to APMC, Junagadh scheduled to be held tomorrow. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. At this stage, Mr Mangukia for respondent No.5- societies prays for suspending the operation of this order. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the request is rejected. Direct service is permitted today.” 20. In the decision in the case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai (supra), the question of the relevant date again came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court where it was held that in order to be eligible for inclusion of a name, a society should have obtained the registration on the date of declaration of election and once that process of election has started, the Authorized Officer will have no authority or competence or jurisdiction to include the names of such voters. Paras 13, 16, 19, 22 to 27 of the judgment read as under: “13. The aforesaid shows that as per the above referred conclusion of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari (supra), to be eligible for inclusion of the name in the voters' list for elections to Agricultural Produce Market Committees, if a society, it should have obtained the registration on the date of declaration of the election. If a person holding general licence for traders, he must have licence on the date of declaration of the election and if a co-operative marketing society, the society should have obtained registration and should have obtained general licence of the market committee on the date of declaration of the election. 16. If a person holding general licence for traders, he must have licence on the date of declaration of the election and if a co-operative marketing society, the society should have obtained registration and should have obtained general licence of the market committee on the date of declaration of the election. 16. As observed in the case of Patan Proper Fal and Shak Bhaji Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandli Ltd. (supra), the process of election can be said to have commenced from the date on which the Director has exercised powers under Rule 4 of the Rules and all stages of elections are so conjoint with the manner and mode of holding of the election, it is not possible for us to find that the process of election cannot be said to have commenced after exercise of powers under Rule 4 of the Rules. There are three reasons for which we are inclined to take the aforesaid view. The first is that Part III of the Rules under the Head “Election of Market Committee” begins with Rule 4 providing for the power with Director to pass the order in writing for fixation of the dates of the election and for publication of such order passed by him by affixing the copy in market committee as well as at the conspicuous place in the principal market yard. Therefore, it appears that the intention of the legislature to begin with the process of commencement of election is from the stage of Rule 4. The second reason is that all stages, including that of Rules 7 and 10, would be only after the power is exercised under Rule 4 by the Director. Therefore, in absence of any exercise of powers under Rule 4, it cannot be said that the process of election has commenced or that the subsequent stages of the elections, including that of Rules 7 and 10 would accrue. The third reason is that when the Court is to interpret any provisions of statute, it would make a purposive interpretation so as to maintain the sanctity of election. If the interpretation is made that the process of election has not commenced after exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, such would leave room for a large number of manipulations to be made at the ensuing election of any market committee. If the interpretation is made that the process of election has not commenced after exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, such would leave room for a large number of manipulations to be made at the ensuing election of any market committee. After the declaration of the election programme by exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, one can easily tinker with the sanctity of election. e.g. In the case of the Agriculturists' Constituency where the co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit and their representatives are the voters, new societies can be formed so as to create an artificial majority or minority as may be convenient to the ruling party. If certain societies are created and the show is made as that of functioning by such societies by dispensing agricultural credit, those societies would get themselves included in the voters' list and consequently, a situation may be created which would materially affect the representation to be made from such voters' constituency of agriculturists. Similarly, even in the case of Traders' Constituency, if after publication of the election programme by exercise of powers by the Director under Rule 4, new licences may be issued by the members of the market committee, who are in power so as to create an artificial majority at the ensuing election and a situation may be created which would materially affect the representation to be made from such voters' constituency of Traders. In the same manner, in the case of co-operative societies' constituency, new societies may be formed and or the market committee may issue licences so as to make eligible such societies to be included in the voters' list even after the election is declared. 19. Once the process of election has commenced from 09.01.2013, any person getting eligibility after such date can be termed as not entitled to be included in the voters' list. In the same manner, the Authorised Officer will have no authority or competence or jurisdiction to include the names of such voters who have acquired eligibility after 09.01.2013. If the facts of the present case are examined further, in Special Civil Application No.1890 of 2013, the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 have obtained licences from the market committee on 11.01.2013. In the same manner, the Authorised Officer will have no authority or competence or jurisdiction to include the names of such voters who have acquired eligibility after 09.01.2013. If the facts of the present case are examined further, in Special Civil Application No.1890 of 2013, the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 have obtained licences from the market committee on 11.01.2013. Therefore, the eligibility for inclusion of their names in the voters' list of co-operative societies' constituency could be said to have acquired only on 11.01.2013, which is later to 09.01.2013. Therefore, the eligibility could be said to have acquired for inclusion of their names in the co-operative societies' constituency after the commencement of the process of election. 22. As all the aforesaid societies have acquired eligibility after commencement of the process of election i.e. after 09.01.2013, their names or the names of members of the representative of the societies could not have been included in the voters' list by the Authorised Officer. The action of the Authorised Officer, in our view, can be said as wholly without jurisdiction. 23. We may also record that there are allegations made by the petitioners in the petitions that after commencement of the process of election only with a view to have artificial majority, the group which is in power in the market committee, has got such societies registered and or the licences have been issued by the market committee by circular resolution though not warranted under Rule 35. It was submitted that such procedure for circular resolution for issuance of licence is unknown to Rule 35 of the Rules. In our view, once there was no jurisdiction with the Authorised Officer to include the names of those persons who acquire eligibility after the election programme was declared, we need not examine the allegation further, except observing that be it the group having majority in the market committee or be it the group having minority in the market committee, none can be permitted to tinker with the sanctity of the election and/or to frustrate democratic principles to be observed in a fair and free manner at the election. 24. 24. The attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to contend that once the process of election has begun, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution may not interfere with the election and the petitioners may have the remedy, if available, after the election is over as per Rule 28 of the Rules. In our view, the said contention is answered in the decision of this Court in the case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akbari (supra) and more particularly, the observations made in paragraph 32 of the said decision. We may also refer to another decision of this Court in the case of Shrutbandhu H. Popat v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2007 (3) GLR 1942 and the observations made at paragraphs 27 to 29, which read as under : “27. We may now deal with the decision of the Full Bench heavily relied upon by Mr. B. S. Patel for the APMC in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra) decided on 27.4.2005. The following questions were referred to the Full Bench in the context of elections to the APMCs and the scope of Rule 28 of the APMC Rules constituting the Election Tribunal for deciding disputes relating to elections to APMCs: 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? After considering various decisions of the Apex Court and also the decisions of various Benches of this Court, the Full Bench answered 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. 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. 28. Reading the entire decision of the Full Bench reveals that the question in the context of which the Full Bench was called upon to consider the controversy about maintainability of the petition was whether a member of the Managing Committee of a particular cooperative society was entitled to vote in his capacity as a member of the managing committee of such cooperative society and not merely by virtue of inclusion or deletion of his name in/from the voters list. The contention of the authorities in the said case was that the election petition under Rule 28 provides remedy for resolution of all facets of the dispute as to whether the name of a person being the member of the Managing Committee of a particular cooperative society should be permitted to participate in the election if he ceases to hold the post on the date of the election program. Similarly the question whether a particular cooperative society is dispensing agricultural credit or not would be ordinarily be a disputed question of fact. There cannot, therefore, be any dispute with the proposition that ordinarily the exclusion or inclusion of names from/in the voters' list can be challenged in an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules, after the elections are held. But the Full Bench also held that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstance such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or exfacie without jurisdiction. But the Full Bench also held that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstance such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or exfacie without jurisdiction. The Full Bench also followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar, 2000 (8) SCC 216 and Manda Jaganath vs. K S Rathnam, AIR 2004 SC 3600 laying down that any decision in the election process is open to judicial review on the ground of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of powers and that special situation justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction would mean correcting an error having the effect of interfering in the free flow of the scheduled election or error having the effect of hindering the progress of election. 29. After the above decision of the Full Bench rendered on 27.4.2005, in Pundlik vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on 25.8.2005 and reported at 2005 (7) SCC 181 , the Apex Court held that though preparation of list of voters is one of the stages of election and that normally the High Court would not interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of preparation of list of voters, but such action must be in accordance with law. In the said decision, the Apex Court distinguished their decision in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Santha vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (8) SCC 509 . In Shri Sant Sadguru's case objections against publication of provisional electoral roll of the Society were filed which were considered by the Collector and disposed of. The final electoral roll was published on 2.7.1999. Election program was drawn by him on 21.10.1999. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the election program and the Apex Court held that the High Court should not stay continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged irregularity or breach of the Rules while preparing the electoral roll. However, in the Pundlik case, the original petitioner had taken immediate action on receiving the fax message from the Collector.” 25. However, in the Pundlik case, the original petitioner had taken immediate action on receiving the fax message from the Collector.” 25. Hence, when the action is ultra vires to the power or nullity or ex-facie without jurisdiction, which is in the present case as that of Authorised Officer, we find that it would be an extraordinary or special circumstance which would call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution to maintain sanctity of the election and more particularly, for maintenance of sanctity of the election to be held, by upholding the democratic principles in a free and fair manner. 26. The attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to rely upon another decision of this Court dated 08.10.2012 in Special Civil Application No.15038 of 2010 for contending that the relevant date should be 21.01.2013, which is the date for the first stage of election programme. The perusal of the said decision shows that it was the matter where the names of the members of the managing committee were to be altered, otherwise the societies were already there in the voters' list. Principally, the society would be the voter, but since it has to act through members of the managing committee, the members of the managing committee are to be included in the voters' list being the members of the managing committee of that society, which has obtained licence or which is entitled to be included in the voters' list. It was not a matter where the names were to be included of the society as well as of the members of the managing committee for the first time after declaration of the election programme in exercise of powers under Rule 4 of the Rules. Hence, the fact situation in the said case being different, the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 27. In view the aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that the impugned action of inclusion of names of the aforesaid concerned societies in all the petitions, which have acquired the eligibility after declaration of the election programme on 09.01.2013, could be said as without authority, jurisdiction and ultra vires to the powers of the Authorised Officer. 27. In view the aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that the impugned action of inclusion of names of the aforesaid concerned societies in all the petitions, which have acquired the eligibility after declaration of the election programme on 09.01.2013, could be said as without authority, jurisdiction and ultra vires to the powers of the Authorised Officer. Hence, the said action of the Authorised Officer to include the names of such societies in the voters' list of the respective constituency is quashed and set aside with further clarification that as a consequence of the aforesaid direction, those persons who are included in the voters' list as members of the market committee of the aforesaid societies shall not be entitled to cast their votes at the ensuing election of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Vadhwan. The petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has undertaken to convey the present order to the Authorised Officer.” 21. Reading of both these decisions indicate that though the Full Bench in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra) has addressed the issue on the entertainability of the petition, when it is found that the action of inclusion is fraudulent and contrary to the provisions of law and when the Authorized Officer has no authority or competence or jurisdiction to include the names of such voters post 13.08.2021, when admittedly the licenses to the traders / cooperative marketing societies were granted only on 20.09.2021, the same was not in accordance with Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act and even after 31.08.2021, the date on which the APMC sent the electoral roll to the Authorized Officer. Admittedly on that day, the appellants did not possess any license and therefore had no right to be included in the voters’ list. 22. In the case of Mahendra Maganbhai Patel (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that when it is found by the Court that an extraordinary case is made out and there is an attempt to create an artificial majority and the action is found to be not only legal but also fraud on the election process, intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Distinction was drawn between the maintainability and entertainability of the petition. The writ petition was held maintainable. 23. Distinction was drawn between the maintainability and entertainability of the petition. The writ petition was held maintainable. 23. In the case of Union Territory of Ladakh (supra) in paras 36 and 37, the Court has held that though the Courts in election matters need to have a hands off approach but where there is an indication of an unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the constitutional Courts are required and duty-bound to step in. 24.Here is a case where admittedly once the election process was set in motion on 13.08.2021 and even otherwise the Authorized Officer received the list on 31.08.2021 and the preliminary voters’ list was published on 04.09.2021 and even the last date of raising objections to the preliminary voters’ list had passed on 18.09.2021, the licenses of the appellants were only given on 20/21.09.2021, obviously far beyond the relevant date. Keeping this in mind and the background of the authorized officer’s conduct vide letters dated 04.10.2021 and 09.11.2021 indicated not only abdication of his authority but also an attempt to create voters to disturb the level-playing field between the candidates. 25.It is under these circumstances we find that the learned Single Judge committed no error in entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the Court has carved out certain exceptions wherein, a petition under Article 226 can be entertained. Para 37 of the judgement in case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579 reads as under: “37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.” 26.Here is a case where as discussed herein above, the Authorized Officer has not acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, there was no error on the part of the learned Single Judge to entertain the writ petition. 27.It was in these circumstances that the learned Single Judge in para 11 of the judgement quashed and set aside the impugned orders, the notification dated 04.10.2021 with outward no.360 of 2021 and the other four voters’ lists published and directed to initiate the election process of the two constituencies from the stage of Rule 8(1) of the Rules. Rather than set aside the election as a whole, we see no infirmity in interference to this limited extent as the circumstances warranted the Court to step in only to this extent. 28.We note that the learned Single Judge had by the interim orders quoted in the final judgment, stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned orders and on 18.11.2021 passed the following order: “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. 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. 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.” 29.By way of the above quoted order, the elections were permitted to be held. 30.We also note that while admitting this appeal, a Division Bench of this Court on 05.09.2022 had passed an ex-parte order qua stay of execution, implementation and operation of the order of the learned Single Judge. 31.In light of the reasons aforesaid, we see no merits in the appeals and the appeals are accordingly dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. 32.In view of the disposal of the main appeals, connected Civil Applications will not survive and hence, they also stand disposed of. FURTHER ORDER Mr. Dakshay Patel learned counsel for Mr.Bharat Rao requests that interim relief granted earlier be continued for a period of eight weeks. Mr.Dipan Desai learned counsel for the respondents objects to the said request. Request is rejected.