( 1 ) THE petitioners in all 8 in number, who are members of Visalvasna Seva sahkari Mandali Ltd. , (the affiliated society of the respondent no. 3), are before this court with a grievance that the respondeni no. 1 at the behest of some others had rejected their nomination papers when the present petitioners in their capacity as representatives of their own society wanted to contest the elections of the respondent no. 3 - Patan Taluka Sahkari Kharid vechan Sangh Ltd. It is to be seen that the election Officer rejected the nominations of the present petitioners observing that on a juxtapose reading of Rule 23 (2) and Rule 18 (1), so also Rule 19 (1) and the Election byelaw 8 (5) of the respondent no. 3, the nominations were liable to be rejected.

( 2 ) SUBMISSIONS of the learned counsel for the petitioners are; (i) that at the behest of some political parties, the respondent no. 1 rejected all the nominations papers, (ii) the respondent no. 1 removed the resolutions which were attached to the nomination papers and thereby played fraud, (in) assuming that such resolutions were not attached with the nomination papers, then too, the defect was not of a substantial nature and as the resolution made by their own society - Visalvasna seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. , was available with the Election Officer, which was submitted for inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the voters list, the defect would not be of a substantial nature or character.

( 3 ) THE respondent no. 1 has filed his affidavit, wherein, he has clearly denied the personal allegations. He has stated that the allegations of playing fraud or rejecting the nominations at the behest of someone else are bad and false and false to the knowledge of the petitioners. He has also submitted that the nominations were not attached with the resolution and he was absolutely justified in rejecting the nominations. He has stated that he acted on his own free will and has not done any act which was unwanting of him.

( 4 ) AFTER taking Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners to this affidavit, we asked him that if the material facts have been challenged and have been controverted on oath then how can a finding into the allegations or counter-allegations that the respondent no. 1 worked at the behest of someone or playing fraud by removing the resolutions be recorded by us under Article 226 and, would it not be advisable for the petitioners to go to the Election Tribunal, mr. Patel submitted that even if those two arguments available to the petitioners are not taken into consideration because of a dispute in relation to the facts, his submission on grounds may be considered and the petition be allowed.

( 5 ) IT was submitted by Mr. Patel that the learned Election Officer was absolutely unjustified in referring to the election byelaw no. 8 (5) made/framed by the respondent no. 3 when the elections are to be conducted in accordance with the rules known as Gujarat Specified Cooperative societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982.

( 6 ) IN our opinion, the objection raised by mr. Patel should not detain us, because, nominations have not been rejected simply on the ground of non-observance of election byelaw no. 8 (5) of the respondent no. 3. In fact, the nominations have been rejected in light of Rule 23 (2) read with Rules 18 (1) and 19 (1) of 1982 Rules.

( 7 ) MR. Patel submitted that before referring to these Rules, it would be necessary to refer to Section 74c of Gujarat cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Section 74c reads as under :"74c. Provision for conduct of election of commodities and officers of certain societies and term of office of members of the committees. (1) The election of members of the committees and of the officers by the committee, of the societies of the categories mentioned below shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XI-A and shall be conducted in the manner laid down by or under that Chapter;- (1) Apex societies mentioned in the sched