JAYANT PATEL, J.

1. Rule. Ms.Manish Shah, learned GP appearing for the respondent no.1State and its authorities and Mr.Anshin Desai learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. With the consent of parties, the petitions are finally heard.

2. In both petitions, common questions arise for consideration as to whether the societies whose names were already included in the voters’ list could be said as defunct society by the authorised officer and thereby to exclude the name from the voters’ list or not.

3. We may record that for the election programme and various stages of the election programme, there is no dispute. It is also undisputed position that the petitioners-society and members of the Managing Committee were included in the provisional voters’ list. However, the objections were filed against the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioners-society by the private respondents on the ground that they were not required to be included in the voters’ list and their names are required to be excluded in the voters’ list. The authorised officer has given opportunity of hearing before considering the objection and in the written submission made on behalf of the respective petitioner-society, details were given on 05.05.2015, which included inter alia (1) deposits from different persons were received by the society; (2) the society had given loan to its members; (3) society had purchased the fertilizers and had supplied fertilizer to its different members; (4) in the year 201314 and even in the year 201415, the society had again purchased fertilizer from Taluka Sangh and they were supplied to its members; (5) recoveries were made by the society and loans were also given by the society to its various members. Transaction of loans were by cheques.

4. On 22.02.2015, in respect of the transaction of loan, the revenue entries were also mutated in the revenue records.

5. Inspite of the aforesaid situation, the authorised officer has taken view that the society could not be said to be rendering agricultural credit because as per him, the transactions were not genuine for giving of loan and, therefore, he passed impugned order for excluding the name of the petitioner-society and its members of the Managing Committee from the voters’ list. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

6. We have heard Mr.Dipen Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms.Shah, learned GP for the State and its authorities and Mr.Anshin Desai for the private respondents.

7. If the facts of the present case are considered, we are of the view that the petitions are covered by two decisions of this Court; one is by this Court (Coram : Jayanti Patel & Mohinder Pal, JJ. (one of use was already party to the said decision)) in Special Civil Application No.1378/2013 in case of Varsada Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. decided on 13.12.2013 and another is by coordinate bench of this Court (Coram : M.R. Shah & G.B. Shah, JJ.) in Special Civil Application No.1199/2015 in case of Nilpur Colony Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. decided on 22.01.2015.

8. We may record that in the decision of this Court in case of Varsada Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (supra), this Court at paragraph nos. 3 to 11 observed thus,

“3. On the aspect of facts, there is no dispute of the election programme declared, the exclusion of the name of the petitioner society in the provisional voters list and the decision of the authorised officer to exclude the name of the petitioner society/members of the managing committee of the petitioner society from the voters list. Therefore, no much discussion is required on the said aspects.

4. The only contention to be considered in the present petition is whether the society who has undertaken its activity and the business during the period of earlier three years could be said as dispensing agricultural credit if it has not given loan t