S.D. PANDIT, J.

1. RULE. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in all the petitions. Learned Advocate Mr. Tushar Mehta waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of respondent No. 4 in all the petitions. Learned Advocate Mr. B. S. Patel waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6 in all the petitions. With the consent of the learned Advocates of the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing.

2. THESE three petitions are filed by the petitioners who belong to three different categories of voters as contemplated by Rule 7 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1965"). With the consent of the parties, all these petitions are heard together on merits and they are being disposed of by this common judgment as they pertain to the same question of law involved in these petitions.

Petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 8523 of 1997 are the traders who are carrying on their business in the market area of Mehsana Agricultural Produce Market Committee. In petition No. 8534 of 1997, the petitioners are societies registered under Co-operative Societies Act and who are functioning and working within the area of respondent No. 4-Mehsana Agricultural Produce Market Committee. As per the provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1965, the members of Managing Committee of these Co-operative Societies are to become voters for the election of the Committee of Mahesana Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 1997 are also Cooperative Societies and the members of the Managing Committee of these societies who fall in the co-operative market constituencies are entitled to become voters for the election of the respondent No. 4-Mahesana Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The respondent No. 1 in all these petitions, namely Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance issued the programme for holding the election of respondent No. 4 Market Committe. As per the said programme on 24-10-97, the Authorised Officer was to publish the list of voters which is known as preliminary list, at some conspicuous place in the Market Ward. On 12.11.97, after considering the objections, if any received, as regards the inclusion or non-inclusion of the voters in the list published on 24-10-97, he was to publish the second list as provided by Rule 8(1-A) and after (he publication of the said second list on 12th November 1997, the final list after considering the objections as regards the addition of names which were not in the list of 24-10-97 as contemplated by Rule 8(1-A), the final list was to be published on 24.11.97. The programme published by the respondent No. I further shows that on 29.12.97 is the date for filing nomination papers. 30.12.97 was the date for scrutiny of nomination papers and 2.1.1998 is the date for withdrawal of the nomination papers, if any, and the same date is also the date for publishing list of candidates contesting the election. 12.1.98 is the date for casting votes and 13.1.98 is the date for declaration of results of the election.

3. IT is the case of all the petitioners in all these three petitions that their names were appearing on the preliminary list published on 24-10-97. Their names also continued to appear in the second list published after complying with the provisions of Rule 8(1) on 12-11-97, but when the final list was published on 24-11-97, their names are not appearing in the final list. IT is also further claim of the petitioners in petition No. 8536 of 1997 that names of respondents No. 5 and 6 were not appearing in the preliminary list published on 24.10.97. They were also not appearing in the list published on 12.11.97 and their names are suddenly appearing in the final list published on 24.11.97. IT is the contention of the petitioners that if the provisions of Rule 8 as a whole is considered,