The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants have an alternative remedy available under Rule 28 of the APMC Rules, and therefore, the petition under extraordinary jurisdiction may not be entertained.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.

1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the appellants - original petitioners have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.18140 of 2021.

2. The background of the facts which has given rise to filing of present Letters Patent Appeal is that election of Agriculture Produce Markets Committee, Vankaner (hereinafter referred to as "the APMC, Vankaner) had been notified by Director of APMC on 13.10.2021 in view of Rule 4 of the APMC Rules, 1965. The Director by such declaration has specified the various stages of election programme including the stage of preparation of voters list and casting of votes and declaration of result. Simultaneously, one Mr. J. M. Mehta, Co-operative Officer, Grade-II (Industry) had been appointed as an Authorized Officer who is attached to the office of District Registrar, Co-operative Society, Morbi. By virtue of Rule 7 of the APMC Rules, every co-operative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area shall communicate the full names of members of its managing committee together with the place of residence of each members and the last date for sending such particulars was prescribed as 24.10.2021. On the basis of such material being supplied, the APMC, Vakaner has prepared a voter list in view of Section 11 of the APMC Act and forwarded the same to the Authorized Officer.

2.1. It is further case of the appellants that on receipt of the voters list from the APMC, Vakaner, the Authorized Officer has published a preliminary voter list on 29.10.2021 and same was published in view of Rule 7(2) of the APMC Rules since Authorized Officer is under an obligation to publish the same. The Authorized Officer has accordingly published the preliminary voter list for all the three constituencies, i.e. Agriculturists' constituency, co-operative marketing societies constituency and traders constituency on 29.10.2021. The present appellants relates to the voters list of Agriculturists' constituency.

2.2. It is further the case of the appellants that as per the bye laws of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., the appointment of representative of Shree Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is extending loan to the society is made on the Managing Committee and vide latter dated 22.09.2021 nominated one Shri Hasanhbai Allauddinbhai Patel, the appellant No.10 herein as representative of the Bank on the Managing Committee of Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. and authorized him to vote at the election of the society as well as his name has to be sent as a member of managing committee and he can cast vote as representative of the bank. Insofar as preliminary voter list of agriculturists' constituency for the election of APMC, Vankaner, the names of petitioners appear at serial Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 76, 77, 79 and 81 respectively. As per the requirement after publication of preliminary voter list, within 14 days from the date of publication thereof, any person who desires to file objection against inclusion of any person in the voter list or any person whose name is left out in the voter list can make an application for inclusion or exclusion of names as the case may be.

2.3. It is stated by the appellants that respondent No.4 as such has submitted an objection on 02.11.2021 against inclusion of names of petitioners in the voters list. A copy of the said objection was not supplied to the appellants or Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. by the Authorized Officer and the Authorized Officer without supply of such has sent a notice dated 02.11.2021 to Shree Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. calling upon the society to remain present before the Authorized Officer on 09.11.2021. On 09.11.2021, Shri Kishan Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. submitted a detailed reply to the said notice issued by the Authorized Officer but then according to appellants without considering the