BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Both the petitions pertain to the orders passed by the authorized officer in respect of the election of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Rajpipla (hereinafter referred to as "the A.P.M.C., Rajpipla”), and therefore, are being decided by this common judgement. The petitions were heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioner in Spl.C.A. No.11586 of 2017 has challenged the impugned order dated 8.6.2017 passed by the respondent Authorized Officer at Annexure-A, holding the respondent Nos.5 to 20 eligible traders for participating in the election of A.P.M.C., Rajpipla from the Traders' Constituency as per Section 11(1)(ii) of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act”).

3. The petitioner in Spl.C.A. No.11593 of 2017 has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 8.6.2017 passed by the respondent authorized officer (Annexure-A), holding the members of the managing committee of the respondent Nos.5 to 10 Societies eligible for participating in the said election from the Co-operative Marketing Societies' Constituency as per Section 11(1)(iii) of the said Act. Both the orders have been assailed on the ground of being arbitrary and tainted by mala fide and colourable exercise of powers.

4. The factual matrix in both the petitions may be summarized as under :-

4.1 As per the case of the petitioner in Spl.C.A. No.11586 of 2017, the election of the A.P.M.C., Rajpipla was declared by the respondent No.2-Director on 5.5.2017 and the election programme was published on 8.5.2017 (Annexure-B). The respondent No.4 having been appointed as the authorized officer, he had published the preliminary list of voters for the traders’ constituency. The petitioner, who was the trader and the Chairman of the Rajpipla Anaj Kariyana Vepari Association had raised the objections against the inclusion of the names of the respondent Nos.5 to 20 and others in the said voters’ list of traders. According to him, some of the respondents were dealing in fruits and vegetable, some were dealing in fertilizer and some were dealing in sugarcane, which were not the regulated items. It was also alleged that some of the respondents were the distributors and some were running fair-price shop, who could not be said to be the traders and could not be included in the voters’ list. The respondent No.4, rejected the said objections vide the impugned order holding without assigning any reasons that the respondent Nos.5 to 20 were eligible to be included in the voters’ list of the traders’ constituency as per Section 11(1) (ii) of the said Act.

4.2 The petitioner in Spl.C.A. No.11593 of 2017 is the member of the managing committee of Rajuvadiya Telibiya Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited and he is included in the voters’ list of the Co-operative Marketing Societies’ constituency for election of A.P.M.C., Rajpipla. The respondent No.4 having been appointed as the authorized officer had published the preliminary voters’ list of the cooperative marketing societies’ constituency on 21.5.2017. The petitioner had raised the objections against inclusion of the members of the managing committee of the respondent Nos.5 to 10 societies on the ground that the said societies being not the Co-operative Marketing Societies, were not eligible to be included in the said voters’ list. However, the said objections were rejected by the respondent No.4 vide the impugned order dated 8.6.2017 by holding without assigning any reasons that the said respondent-Societies were eligible to be included in the voters’ list of the Co-operative Marketing Societies’ constituency as per Section 11 (1) (iii) of the said Act.

4.3 Both the petitions were resisted by the respondents by filing their respective replies. The concerned private respondents had initially filed their common reply, however, the Court having taken serious view in the matter, some of the r