R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 11249 of 2004, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Election officer made on 3. 9. 2004 at Annexure:i to the petition, refusing to take the objections against nomination papers into consideration on the ground that they were not submitted in the prescribed time and that they were given only after the nomination papers were declared to be valid when no objections were received. Admittedly, the election process for election of the Agricultural Produce market Committee, Vadodara has started long ago and voting is to take place on 16th September, 2004. 1. 1 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 11399 of 2004 and 11400 of 2004, the petitioners have challenged the rejection of their nomination papers. The Election officer made a common order on 31. 8. 2004 on the grounds mentioned in detail in that order rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners. Voting is scheduled to take place on 13. 9. 2004 in both the above petitions for election of Siddhpur Market Committee. 1. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 11207 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of his nomination paper made on 4. 9. 2004 by the Election officer on the basis of the order made by the High Court on 20. 6. 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 2164 of 2004, by which, in paragraph-6, it was clarified that as a consequence of the interim order, the petitioner shall not be entitled to contest or to get himself elected as a member of the Market Committee. Admittedly, that order of the High Court had not been challenged by way of an appeal.

( 2 ) AT the request of the learned counsel made after the hearing of the first matter, the other petitions were also heard together.

( 3 ) IT was sought to be contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the grounds germane to rejection of the nomination papers under rule-16 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 were not taken into consideration and that in the first case where objections were not considered, there had been failure in the exercise of jurisdiction while in the other cases, where the nominations were rejected, the exercise of power is ultra vires the provisions of rule-16 of the Act. It was contended that ultra vires or void order is required to be ignored and if this Court corrects the mistake, it would in fact be acting in furtherance of holding of the elections. 3. 1 reliance was placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Kanjibhai Babaldas patel v. Election Officer of A. P. M. C. , Visnagar, reported in 42 (1) GLR 260, for pointing out that this court did set aside the order of rejection of the nomination form on 10th March, 2000 when the polling date was 13th March, 2000. 3. 2 the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in Mehsana district Cooperative Purchase and Sale Union Ltd. , Vs. Dhadusan Beej Utpadak Rupantar and Vechan Karnari Sahkari mandali Ltd. , reported in 1998 (1) G. L. H. 170 to point out that it was held therein that the decision of the authorised Officer to delete the names of the petitioners from the final voters list was illegal and opposed to rule 8 (1-A) of the Rules and that if the alternative remedy suggested was illusory and ambiguous, the Court would not hesitate in exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was made clear in paragraph-17 of the judgment that in the matter of election, the Court shall exercise this discretion with great caution and circumspection and the election process already initiated by the authorities shall not be altered so lightly to the disadvantage of so many other persons. In that case, the election could be conducted as scheduled, and it was held that the learned Single Judge was justified in granting the reliefs sought for by the respondents. 3. 3 reliance was also placed on the decision of the supreme Court in Election Commi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document