Important Point
Cooperative society which carries on business of buying or selling of agricultural produce under a licence in market area is also a trader.

C.L. Soni, J.

1. The petition is taken up for final disposal at the notice stage with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. The challenge made in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 16.2.2016 passed by the authorized officer removing the names of members of Managing Committee of the petitioner No. 1 society from provisional list of voters of co-operative marketing societies constituency for election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sanand.

3. The main objections raised against the inclusion of the names of members of managing committee of the petitioner No. 1 society are that the object of the society is not of purchase and sale of agriculture produce but to provide livelihood to its members by collective farming through them on the land to be taken from the Government. The petitioner No. 1 society represented that it has got licence from the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sanad, that its object is also to purchase and sale agriculture produce and it got bye-law No. 3(2) approved on 21.7.2015.

4. The authorized officer however has observed in the impugned order that as per the audit report for the period from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2015, the main object of petitioner No. 1 society is of doing collective farming and that it is not engaged in the business in conformity with its objects. On such conclusion, the impugned order is passed.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. B.S. Patel for the petitioners submitted that the authorized officer committed serious error by not considering the bye laws of the petitioner No. 1 society and relied only on audit report which contained factual error. Mr. Patel submitted that not only in the original bye-laws but additionally in amended bye-law No. 3(2), the objects mentioned are to sale the agriculture produce paddy of the members of petitioner No. 1 society, and to show actual sale of paddy, the petitioners also produced relevant material.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Prakash K. Jani however submitted that to be eligible to vote from any constituency, a person or a society has to satisfy the qualification provided in sec.11. Mr. Jani submitted that since the petitioner No. 1 society is producers' society and not the marketing society, it cannot be included in the voters' list of Co-operative Marketing Societies Constituency.

7. Mr. B.S. Patel then submitted that as per the definition of cooperative marketing society, the petitioner No. 1 society since registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ("the Societies Act") and engaged in the business of selling agricultural produce and also holding general licence from the market committee, satisfies the requirements to be included in the voters' list of co-operative marketing societies constituency. Mr. Patel submitted that as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdishbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel versus State of Gujarat dated 23.10.2008 in Special Civil Application No. 30073 of 2007 and allied matters, the petitioner No. 1 society is a co-operative marketing society and, therefore, it is wrongly removed from the voters' list.

8. Learned additional Advocate General Mr. Jani on the other hand submitted that the petitioner No. 1 society is not registered as marketing society but got itself registered as producers' society and, therefore, it is rightly removed from the voters' list of co-operative marketing societies constituency. Mr. Jani submitted that when it is producers' society, the authorized officer has rightly concluded that it is not engaged in the business in conformity with its objects. Mr. Jani submitted that a producers' society with one of the objects to sell agriculture produce of paddy would not become marketing society as its main objects are for more production of agriculture produce by helping its members. Mr. Jani submitted that since the election process has commenced, this court may not interfer