The court upheld the jurisdiction of the authorized officer to remove names from the voters' list if their election or nomination does not adhere to statutory guidelines.

1. The authority and jurisdiction of the authorized officer appointed under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") while discharging functions as authorized officer during the process of election of the agricultural market committees is being questioned time and again by the aggrieved persons by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. This is one of such matters, where the petitioner society has challenged the order dated 5.6.2017 passed by the respondent authorized officer deleting the names of the members of the petitioner's managing committee from the voters' list of agriculturist constituency prepared for the election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mandal (hereinafter referred to as "the APMC, Mandal").

2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Societies Act). The administration of the society is being looked after by the managing committee of the society and the object of the society is to extend the benefit of agricultural finance to its members. As per the audit report certified by the Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Ahmedabad, the petitioner society was given Grade - A for the period 2015-16. It is further case of the petitioner society that the election of APMC, Mandal was declared on 4.5.2017 as per the election programme (Annexure - B). The petitioner society, therefore, had forwarded the names of the members of its managing committee to the authorized officer for being included in the voters' list of agriculturist constituency. The authorized officer had accordingly included the said names in the preliminary voters' list declared on 17.5.2017 (Annexure - C). However, the respondent No. 4 having raised objection against the inclusion of the names of the members of the petitioner's managing committee, the authorized officer vide the impugned order dated 5.6.2017 deleted the said names (Annexure - F), on the ground that the petitioner society had increased the number of members of its managing committee from 9 to 21 only with a view to increase the number of votes in the election of the APMC, Mandal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 by filing their respective replies mainly contending inter alia that after the declaration of the election of APMC, Mandal on 4.5.2017, the petitioner society had called the general body meeting on 10.5.2017 and selected 21 members for its managing committee without holding any election, and therefore, their names could not have been included in the voters' list.

4. Mr. B. T. Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioner society, pressing into service various provisions contained in the said Act and the Societies Act, vehemently submitted that the authorized officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by going into the issue of deciding the validity of the election / nomination of the members of the petitioner's managing committee, and by observing that the petitioner had increased the number of its members only with a view to increase the number of votes in the APMC, Mandal. He further submitted that the petitioner society had carried out amendment in its bye - laws in consonance w