( 1 ) BOTH these appeals involve common questions and have been argued together.

( 2 ) THE appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge rejecting their petitions for restraining the respondents from including in the voters list of the Agriculturists Constituency of the Siddhpur Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, the members of the managing committees of the co-operative societies dealing in milk and animal husbandry, because there has not been any declaration of intention of regulating purchase and sale of these items which are specified in the Schedule to the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. The learned Single Judge construing the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act and the Circular dated 30. 12. 1982 held that the co-operative societies engaged in producing milk and in animal husbandry, but dispensing agricultural credit were also eligible for inclusion in the agricultural constituency. It has been held that the authorised officer has yet to decide whether they should be included in the voters list. The authorised officer, as defined in Rule 2 (ii) of the Rules framed under the said Act, who is the competent officer under Rules 5 to 9 to prepare and publish provisional list and after inviting objections prepare and publish voters list for all the three constituencies separately, has to decide as to which co-operative societies can be included in the agricultural constituency and that this Court cannot be expected to verify and examine the eligibility of all these voters who may be included in the voters list.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Scheme of the said Act, particularly the meaning of the expression "agricultural produce" in Clause (i), "agriculturist" in Clause (ii), "cooperative marketing society" in Clause (v), "trader" in Clause (xxiii) of Section 2 and the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 9 read with Section 24 indicated that only a co-operative society dealing with any of the regulated items of Schedule I which dispensed agricultural credit was qualified for forwarding the names of the members of its managing committee under Rule 7 (1) for preparation of the voters list under Rule 5 (1) for the purpose of election of eight agriculturists to the market committee under Section 11 (1) (i) of the said Act. It was contended that the co-operative societies who deal in non-regulated items like milk for which there is no declaration made under Section 5 of the Act, cannot participate in the election of members of the market committees. Moreover, if a credit society advances credit only to the agriculturists who deal in non-regulated items, it would not be qualified for participating in electing the eight agriculturists under Section 11 (1) (i) of the Act. It was further argued that, even the objects of these milk co-operative societies did not qualify them for the purpose. Moreover, their bye-laws should sufficiently indicate that they were required to dispense credit also to the agriculturists who deal in the regulated items. The learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in HUSSEINBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI MALEK v. P. V. BHATT reported in 20 (2) G. L. R. 38 and GUNVANTRAI MANIBHAI DESAI v. B. NARSINHMN reported in 25 (1) G. L. R. 603 on interpretation of Section 11 (1) (i) of the Act. In the latter decision, it was held that the fisheries societies, if they are not engaged in the produce or growth of the items listed in the Schedule appended to the said Act, cannot be included as societies dispensing agricultural credit in the market area. It was also held that if the milk societies dispense agricultural credit in the market area, meaning thereby that they are created for the purpose of production or growth of agricultural produce, the member of the managing committee of such societies will be entitled to be included in the voters list. If such societies dispense such agricultural credit in the market area, the me