THE JASANVADA (PATEL VAS) SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12244 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12258 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12293 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
=============================================
THE JASANVADA (PATEL VAS) SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI
LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
SCA No.12244 of 2026
MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
Mr. Dhawan Jayswal with Ms. Krishna Desai Asst. GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
SCA No.12258 off 2026
Mr. Dhawan Jayswal with Mr. Angesh Panchal Asst.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
SCA No.12293 of 2026
Mr. Dhawan Jayswal with Mr.. Henil Shah Asst. GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 13/10/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since this group of matters arises out of the non-
inclusion of the petitioner Co-operative Societies in the voters'
list related to the elections of the Agricultural Produce Market
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
Committee (APMC), Bhabhar, raising common questions of
law, they were heard together and are decided by this
common judgment.

2. For the sake of brevity, as similar facts are involved,
Special Civil Application No. 12244 of 2026 is treated as the
lead matter.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner Co-operative Society has
prayed for the following reliefs:
“A. Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, direction or order,
quashing and setting aside the impugned order
dated 06.08.2026 passed by the respondent No.4
Authorized Officer, Annexed at Annexure A to this
petition;
B. Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, direction or order,
directing the respondents more particularly,
respondent Nos.3 and 4, to permit the members of
the managing committee of the petitioner society
to vote from the Agriculturist Constituency in the
elections of Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, Bhabhar:
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the
Page 2 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
petition, Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the
execution operation and implementation of the
impugned order dated 06.08.2026 passed by the
respondent No.4 Authorized Officer, Annexed at
Annexure A and thereby be pleased to permit the
members of the managing committee of the
petitioner society to participate in the elections of
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhabhar
from the agriculturists constituency;”

4. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:
4.1. The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit
Cooperative Society dispensing agriculture credit within the
market area of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Bhabhar.
4.2. Since the term period of the APMC, Bhabhar was due
respondent No. 2 -Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural
th
Finance declared election on 6 July 2026 and respondent
no.4- the Authorized Office published the election program on
same day. As per the schedule of the election program, the
st
preliminary voters' list was to be published on 21 July 2026,
th
followed by the publication of the provisional voters' list on 6
August 2026, and the final voters' list was to be published on
th th
17 August 2026.  The date of voting was notified as 28
th
September 2026, and the result was to be declared on 29
September 2026. The Respondent No. 4 -Authorized Officer
called for details of Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
Societies dispensing agriculture credit in the market area, as
required under Rule 7 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce
Markets Rules, 1965 (for the sake of brevity, referred as
“APMC Rules, 1965”, in short).
4.3. The petitioner had submitted requisite documents
reflecting the dispensation of agriculture credit to its
members in the market area so as to be included in the voters'
list.  Upon appreciation of the documents, the names of the
members of the managing committee of the petitioner Society
st
were included in the preliminary voters' list published on 21
rd
July 2026 at Serial Nos. 927 to 947.  However, on 3 August
2026, respondent No. 5 -Mafabhai Peerabhai Kag raised
objections against the inclusion of the names of the members
of the managing committee of the petitioner Society. The
Authorized Officer issued notice to the petitioner Society to
submit its reply to the objections. The date of hearing was
th
fixed on 5 August 2026. 
4.4. The petitioner Society, through its representative,
appeared before the Authorized Officer. However, the objector
-respondent No. 5, for reasons best known to him, chose not
to appear, nor did he supply any details or documents in
support of his objections.  Despite the fact that by a detailed
reply along with contemporaneous records, the petitioner
having satisfied the Authorized Officer with regard to
dispensation of agriculture credit, respondent No. 4 -
th
Authorized Officer, by the impugned order dated 6 August
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
2026, excluded the names of the members of the managing
committee of the petitioner Society from the voters' list of the
Agriculturists Constituency. Hence, present petition.

5. Considering the arguments made by the learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner and having heard the learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-
th
State, this Court, vide order dated 25 September 2026, and
noticing the schedule of the election program whereby the
th
voting of the concerned APMC was fixed for 28 September
2026, the respondent authorities were directed to retain the
votes of the members of the managing committee of the
respective petitioners in a sealed cover separately, and the
th
matters were kept for final hearing on 29 September 2026.
th
On 30 September 2026, arguments of learned advocates
were concluded and the matters were directed to be notified
for orders whereby the Election Officer has been directed not
to declare the result of the election until the next date.

Submission on behalf of the petitioners:
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Dipan Desai, appearing for the
petitioner has vehemently assailed the impugned order passed
by the Authorized Officer as being illegal, contrary to the
evidence on record, and against the well-settled legal position.
According to him, the essential inquiry under Section 11(1)(i)
of the Gujarat APMC Act,1963 (for sake of brevity, “The APMC
Act, 1963”, in short) is whether the concerned society is a
Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society and is
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
engaged in dispensing agriculture credit in the market area.
Once the Authorized Officer is satisfied that these ingredients
are established, he cannot superimpose other conditions
which are not found in the statutory provision. Referring to
Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act, 1963 learned advocate
submitted that it does not expressly require that every
agriculture loan must originate from a District Central Co-
operative Bank, that lending must be shown for a fixed
number of preceding years, or that the society is disabled
from using its own funds. In other words, the Authorized
Officer committed a grave error in holding that only societies
dispensing agriculture credit through a three-tier system are
qualified to be included in the voters' list. In this regard,
learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Patel
Hardasbhai Danabhai v. State of Gujarat , reported in
2025 (0) GUJHC 33867. Thus, according to learned
advocate, the law is well settled that the requirement of a
three-tier co-operative credit structure cannot be treated as a
relevant criterion for the purpose of holding a primary co-
operative society eligible under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act. 
Learned advocate has further referred to and relied upon the
relevant observations made in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the
aforesaid decision and submitted that the Court has
categorically observed that a plain reading of Section 11(1)(i)
makes it clear that to become an eligible voter in the
Agriculturists Constituency, the primary statutory
requirement remains the dispensation of agriculture credit
within the market area. There is no further stipulation with
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
regard to any additional qualification criteria, such as
dispensation of credit by following three-tier system and not
by private fund. In addition to the aforesaid interpretation, the
Court has also considered the provisions of Section 2(7-A) and
Section 44A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961
which permit such societies to decide their own policy with
regard to loan, etc., and if the bye-laws of the society permit
loan by way of private funds, there is no harm if the primary
agriculture credit co-operative society gives advance to its
members from its private funds. Reliance was also placed on
the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Narendrasinh Rupsangbhai Chauhan versus State
of Gujarat , reported in 2021(0)AIJEL-HC 243356 .
Inviting my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case
of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
Mandali Limited versus State of Gujarat reported in
2016 GUJHC 21305 holding that only those societies which
have availed and dispensed agriculture credit through the
three-tier system would be eligible to be included in the
voters' list, being referred to and relied upon by the
petitioners, the learned Single Judge has followed the opinion
expressed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Shri
Abhay Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali
Limited versus State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil
Application No. 2000 of 2016. He has, therefore, submitted
that the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society can
advance agriculture credit out of its own accumulated funds,
deposits, or other legally available funds, where the bye-laws
and the governing co-operative law permit such lending. Even
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
otherwise, the statute does not compel a society first to
borrow from the District Central Co-operative Bank and then
onwards lend the same amount to its members. According to
him, the source of funds and the nature of the activity are
distinct questions. In view of the above, learned advocate had
submitted that the Authorized Officer committed grave error
in not believing the transaction of the petitioner co-operative
society to be genuine.
6.1. Referring to the contemporaneous record produced on
file, learned advocate had pointed out that the statement
reflecting recovery of the amount in the financial years itself
is a sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioner co-operative
society had dispensed credit to its members. He submitted
that agriculture credit is not a one-time event ending with
disbursement. It is a continuing credit cycle comprising
advancement of the loan and subsequent recovery of the loan,
together with interest. Thus, merely because no fresh loan
was sanctioned during a particular period cannot be a reason
to hold that the petitioner co-operative society is not engaged
in dispensing credit activity. In this regard, learned advocate
had placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court i.e.
V ansada Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Limited
versus State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.
th
1378 of 2013 , decided on 13 December, 2013; The
Karjipura (Godh) Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited versus
State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 8718 and
th
8719 of 2015 decided on 29 June, 2015; Lilpur Colony
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited versus State of Gujarat,
nd
Special Civil Application No. 1199 of 2015 decided on 22
January, 2015. Even otherwise, according to learned advocate,
bare reading of Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act does not
suggest imposing an incessant obligation to disburse a fresh
agriculture loan every year or immediately before the
election. There may be circumstances where the primary co-
operative society may be engaged in recovery, members may
not seek fresh finances, funds may be temporarily unavailable,
or fresh lending may have remained suspended while earlier
dues are being recovered. In such circumstances, one cannot
jump to a conclusion that the primary co-operative society has
lost its character of being treated as a society dispensing
agriculture credit. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vireshkumar Mavjibhai
Parmar versus Rethali Gopalak Vividh Karyakari
Sahakari Mandali Limited , reported in 2017 (1) SCC 273
(equivalent: AIR 2016 SC 5246), he submitted that, in a
case like pendency of liquidation proceedings in law, whereby
the elected members of the managing committee of a co-
operative society were compelled to hand over the custody
and control of all the property and assets of the society to the
liquidator appointed under Section 107(1) of the Societies Act,
the Court observed that there would be curtailment of certain
rights of the officers of societies facing liquidation
proceedings, however, such officers will not cease to be the
officers of the society till a final order of winding up is passed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that merely because the
officers of credit society were facing liquidation and were
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
disabled from enforcing certain rights attached to the office or
their obligations to the office, it does not necessarily follow
that they are disabled from performing every function
entrusted by law to such office. Thus, the Court had answered
the moot question with regard to exercise of their right to
participate in the election of a market committee
appropriately. He has further submitted that the agriculture
credit may be extended in more than one form. Apart from
conventional monetary loan transactions, the agriculture
inputs, such as fertilizer or seeds, may be supplied on credit.
The advances may be adjusted against agriculture produce,
or, in a given case, an earlier credit transaction may continue
through rescheduling or recovery. He has, therefore,
submitted that the Authorized Officer could not have taken a
narrow view by equating "dispensing agriculture credit"
exclusively with a conventional banking system whereby
record of debit entry in favour of borrowers is maintained.
6.2. In order to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, learned
advocate had placed reliance upon the unreported decision of
this Court in the case of Juni Jithardi Vividh Karyakari
Sahakari Mandli Limited versus State of Gujarat,
rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 6808, 6810,
th
6811, 6812, 7126, and 7127 of 2009 , decided on 14 July,
2009; and Shri Chhunawadi Vibhag Khedut Seva
Sahakari Mandli Limited versus Authorized Officer ,
rendered in Special Civil Application No. 8883 of 2009 ,
th
decided on 28 August, 2009. Learned advocate had again
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
reiterated that neither the Act nor the Rules prescribes that
each and every agriculture loan or recovery must be in the
form of a banking entry. Even the society-produced loan
register, recovery statements, cash book / rojmel, audited
accounts, vouchers, member-wise accounts, and other
statutory books cannot be discarded merely because the
transaction is not supported by any bank account entry.
6.3. He has further submitted that the nature of inquiry
under Rule 8 is summary in nature, whereby the Authorized
Officer is expected to confine his inquiry so as to find out the
eligibility of the members to be included in the voters' list.
The Authorized Officer is not sitting as an auditor conducting
a forensic audit of the society's accounts. In this regard,
learned advocate has once again placed reliance upon the
decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case
of Patel Hardasbhai Danabhai, (supra) , whereby the Court
has categorically held that the scope of inquiry under Rules 7
and 8 is summary in nature. He has further submitted that
had it been a case where disputed questions of fact had arisen
for consideration and detailed evidence was to be examined,
then the statutory remedy of election petition in terms of Rule
28 is to be treated as an efficacious remedy to be availed.
However, in the facts of the present case, the Authorized
Officer has exceeded his scope of inquiry by observing that
the material produced on record does not meet with the
criteria envisaged under Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act,
1963, so as to hold the members of the managing committee
of the petitioner society eligible to be included in the voters'
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
list. Learned advocate had, therefore, urged this Court to
entertain and allow the petitions and to issue appropriate
directions for inclusion of names of the members of the
petitioner society in the voters' list of the APMC.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent State:
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Dhawan
Jayswal, appearing on behalf of respondent State authorities,
has supported the impugned order passed by the Authorized
Officer by submitting that, for the reasons assigned, the
names of the petitioner’s societies have rightly not been
included in the voters' list. According to the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, the statutory phrase is not merely
" primary agriculture credit co-operative society" , but
"primary agriculture credit co-operative society dispensing
agriculture credit in the market area" . Therefore, the
Authorized Officer has rightly delved into the aforesaid
requirement so as to find out as to whether the petitioner was
qualified enough. The attention of this Court was invited to
the Amendment Act, 2015 whereby drastic changes have been
made in Section 11 of the APMC Act. According to the State,
the said amendment places emphasis upon the society
genuinely having agriculture credit as its principal/real
activity so as to exclude the societies which merely exist on
paper. He has, therefore, submitted that, by virtue of the
aforesaid amended provision, the Authorized Officer has been
conferred with the jurisdiction to closely evaluate the records
placed for consideration so as to ascertain the genuine credit
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
co-operative society actually dispensing agriculture credit in
the market area. In this regard, learned Assistant Government
Pleader has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in
the case of Lekhamba Gopalan Ane Samudayik Sahakari
Mandli Limited versus State of Gujarat, rendered in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 230 of 2016 and allied
th
matters , decided on 8 August, 2016; and Shri Abhay
Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited
versus State of Gujarat , rendered in Special Civil
Application No. 2000 of 2016 and allied matters, decided on
th
15 March, 2016.
7.1. As regards the submission made by the learned advocate
for the petitioner co-operative society regarding the element
of the three-tier structure is concerned, he submitted that it is
not a case of automatic disqualification merely because the
society had not borrowed through the District Central Co-
operative Bank. According to him, even if own-fund lending is
legally permissible, it is expected from the society to still
prove that such lending or recovery actually is continuing. The
source of funds itself cannot become a substitute for proof of
a genuine agriculture credit transaction. In order to
demonstrate actual and genuine dispensing, it was expected
from the petitioner co-operative society to produce on record
contemporaneous material showing the details of the
borrower, the amount dispensed, the date of disbursement,
the nature of the agriculture purpose, the outstanding
balance, the recovery of the loan amounts, and the books in
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
which such transactions were recorded. The attention of this
Court was invited to the relevant observations recorded by the
Authorized Officer calling upon the petitioner society to
produce on record the documents in support of their case.
Despite such opportunity being extended by the Authorized
Officer, the petitioners have failed to produce on record such
documents having evidentiary value to substantiate their
claim that the petitioner society was actually dispensing credit
to its members.
7.2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader had referred
to the material placed on record in all the three matters, so as
to demonstrate that the petitioner societies have failed to
bring on record such cogent material to establish that they
were actively engaged in dispensing agriculture credit, which
otherwise is the core requirement. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader had highlighted that, in Special Civil
st
Application No. 12293 of 2024 dated 31 March, 2024, the
statement of account of debit and credit of the petitioner co-
operative society suggests reserve fund of Rs.500/- and a loan
st
amount of Rs.35,000/- being extended to one person on 31
March, 2024. Again, the statement of loss and profit produced
st
on record dated 31 March, 2025 indicates interest earned on
the secured deposit as Rs.16,000/-.He has, therefore,
submitted that most of the documents produced on record are
created on the letterhead of the society. The balance sheet
statements, though being produced, have been created by the
society without any further corroborative material being
produced so as to satisfy that the society was actually involved
Page 14 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
in dispensing credit. With such material on record, no error
can be found with the approach of the Authorized Officer in
doubting the dispensing activity of the petitioner society. He
has further submitted that, even accepting the case of the
petitioner of being engaged in dispensing credit at small
levels to be treated as genuine recovery as part of agriculture
credit activity, every small or isolated recovery entry cannot
by itself establish that the society is actively dispensing
agriculture credit. He has further submitted that there must
be some traceable material so as to satisfy that there actually
exists an agriculture loan for which an isolated recovery had
taken place. In this regard, the petitioner was expected to
produce on record the loan account details, the details of the
borrower, the outstanding principal amount, the interest to be
recovered or realized, the recovery receipts, and the
corresponding books. What has been produced against such
expected material is a mere statement of the figures of profit
and loss, which cannot on its own establish the dispensation
of credit as pressed by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
In this regard, learned Assistant Government Pleader had
distinguished the case of Karjipura Godh , ( supra ), relied
upon by learned advocate for the petitioner, he submitted that
though it recognizes recovery as part of the credit cycle, the
aforesaid ratio has to be applied bearing in mind the facts as
appreciated by the Court in the aforesaid decision. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader had submitted that the Court
was satisfied on the facts and had arrived at a finding that
there was actual lending and recovery material. As regards
the judgment relied upon in the case of Ishwarbhai
Page 15 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
Naranbhai Patel versus State of Gujarat , reported in 2021
(0) AIJEL-HC 243416 , he pointed out that said judgment is
relevant where the purported credit activity is only on paper.
As regards bank statements to be relied upon as corroborative
evidence is concerned, learned Assistant Government Pleader
had submitted that it was one of the modes which Authorized
Officer would expect so as to satisfy the requirement under
the Act, though not being expressly indicated in the provision.
According to him, generally a credit co-operative society shall
maintain a bank account. In such circumstances, the most
reliable documentary evidence to verify the dispensing credit
activity are the statements of the bank accounts, as they
provide an independent means of testing as to whether the
alleged lending or recovery activities were genuine. Reliance
was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Ishwarbhai Naranbhai Patel
(supra), and submitted that the Court must look beyond the
label attached to a transaction. There may be circumstances
where a paper entry or a colourable transaction is created so
as to get included in the electoral roll. In such circumstances,
no error can be found with the approach of the Authorized
Officer who had looked for further corroborative material. As
regards reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Vireshkumar Mavjibhai Parmar (supra) , learned
Assistant Government Pleader had submitted that the
principle of absence of an "incessant obligation" applies
where a society had genuinely been dispensing agriculture
credit and later became temporarily inactive or unable to
advance fresh loans. It does not mean that a society which
Page 16 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
cannot establish genuine agriculture credit activity on the
relevant date can claim qualification merely by pointing to its
registration or to old unsupported entries. Considering the
impugned order, according to him, the summary inquiry
conducted by the authorized officer has to be in a meaningful
manner and not in mechanical acceptance of document.
Reliance was placed on the unreported decision of this Court
in the case of Mandropur (Fatehpur) Jood Seva Sahakari
Mandali Limited vs. State of Gujarat , rendered in Special
th
Civil Application No. 8034 of 2016, decided on 14 June 2016,
as regards foundational inquiry.
7.3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader had therefore
concluded by saying that the authorized officer has, after
offering due opportunity of hearing, by a speaking order, has
rightly excluded the petitioner society from the voters list.
Considering the exigency and the time-bound schedule of the
election, the authorized officer, though by way of simple
words, has passed a reasoned order.  He has therefore
submitted that the only remedy available to the petitioner, in
absence of any allegations with regard to violation of
principles of natural justice, fundamental rights of the
petitioner, or having acted without jurisdiction, is to challenge
by way of an election petition under Rule 28 of the rules
framed.  In this regard, learned Assistant Government Pleader
has placed reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali
Limited vs. R.D. Rohit, 2006 (1) GCD 211 (Guj.) (FB ). 
Learned Assistant Government Pleader had therefore urged to
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
dismiss the present petitions and to vacate the interim relief
granted by this Court.
Analysis:
8. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for the
petitioner and Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP for the
respondent State authority at length. I have carefully perused
the impugned orders in respective petitions and also
examined the relevant documents on record. The short
question which arise for consideration of this Court in light of
the submissions made by learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, is as to in the facts of the case and the
material produced on record, whether the authorized officer
acting under Rule 5, 7 and 8 of the Gujarat Agriculture
Produce Market Rules, 1965, could have insisted for further
corroborative material to satisfy about genuine credit
dispensing activity of a primary agriculture cooperative
society in terms of Section 11 of the Gujarat Agriculture
Produce Market Act, 1963, for its inclusion in the voters list?
9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy, it would
be appropriate to consider the decision of this Court in the
case of P atel Hardsabhai Danabhai (supra) . The Court has
considered the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of
Patan Falafal and Shahbhaji Kharid Vechar Sarkari
Mandli Limited, (supra) and has noted that judicial
restraint is the order of the day. However, an administrative
decision or an action which is based on only irrelevant
considerations or material or excludes from consideration the
Page 18 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
relevant material or order is passed which no reasonable
person could have arrived at on the given material, may be
struck down. The Court has therefore observed that the scope
of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-
making process and not the decision.
10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid guiding principles in the
facts of the case, this Court in order to appreciate the
controversy is required to look into the relevant provisions,
more particularly Section 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agriculture
Produce Market Act, 1963. It is required to be noted that
undoubtedly the primary agriculture credit cooperative
societies dispensing agriculture credit has to be as per the
provisions of the Act. In this regard, it would be appropriate
to consider Section 2(7A) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies
Act, 1961, which defines the term 'cooperative credit
structure' means (i) the primary agriculture credit cooperative
society; (ii) the central cooperative banks; and (iii) the state
cooperative bank. The Court has thus held that the credit
transaction should be as per the three-tier cooperative credit
structure as defined hereunder. However, the Court has also
considered Section 44A of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies
Act, 1961 and has ruled that if the society is registered as a
primary agriculture credit cooperative society, then it would
fall within the definition of the term 'cooperative credit
structure' as defined under Section 2(7A) and thereby has
held that such cooperative society are free to decide their own
policy with regard to loan, etc. Bearing in mind the aforesaid
interpretation of the provisions of the Act, this Court has
Page 19 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
considered the bye-laws of the societies which permits the
petitioner cooperative societies to dispense loan from the
society's fund. In view of the above, it can safely be held that
the petitioner being a primary agriculture credit cooperative
society is entitled to give advances to its members from its
private fund and this being statutorily permitted, the
requirement of Section 11(1)(i) of the Act of 1963, more
particularly the criteria of dispensing agriculture credit in the
market area, stands satisfied.
11. Having held so, it would be appropriate to revisit the
decision of this Court in the case of Shri Abhay Gopal Vividh
Karyakari Sahakari Mandli, (supra), wherein this Court
clarified the voters eligibility in terms of Section 11(1)(i) of
the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1963, following
2015 amendments regarding primary agriculture credit
cooperative societies. The Court has ruled that the main
object of the society must be advancing agriculture credit in
the market area so as to qualify as a primary agriculture
credit cooperative society for the purpose of being included in
the voters list of the concerned APMC. The Court has
accepted the submissions of the State by observing that
insertion of primary agriculture credit by Amendment Act of
2015, in Section 11(1)(i) of the Act of 1963, indicates that the
intention of the legislature was to include the societies which
have their main object to do principal business of providing
financial assistance to their members for agriculture purpose
or for the activities connected with the agriculture were
entitled to be elected. In this regard, the agriculture has to be
Page 20 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
from the agriculture constituency falling within the limits of
the concerned APMC. The Court has thus noted that such
intention of the legislature is clearly evident inasmuch as the
words agriculture credit are repeated in the phrase primary
agriculture credit . It is required to be noted that in para 28 of
the aforesaid decision the Court has not accepted the
arguments of the primary cooperative society that the
Amendment Act 2015 has provided the horizon to include all
agriculture cooperative societies, dispensing agriculture
credit inasmuch as there was no need to incorporate to the
words “primary agriculture credit” before the words
“cooperative societies” appearing in Section 11(1)(i) of the Act
of 1963. The Court accepted the submission made on behalf of
the State that by such amendment the legislature did not
intend to mean to be read it as a simple adjective noun
without any meaning. The legislature did not amend the laws
just to beautify the language. The Court therefore concluded
that the use of the words agriculture credit once again while
amending Section 11(1)(i) of the Act by Amendment Act of
2015 and prefixing the word “primary” before the words
“agriculture credit” makes the intention of the legislature
more clear to give an indication that none except the societies
which have prime object to do principal business of advancing
finance for agriculture purpose and for the purposes
connected with the agriculture activities, could be included in
the voters list for first constituency.
12. Having noted the aforesaid guiding principles, the
subliminal question which arises for consideration of this
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
Court is whether recovery of loan given to members of a
primary agriculture cooperative society satisfies the criteria of
'dispensing credit activity' to qualify as per Section 11(1)(i) of
the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1963, to be
included in voters list.
13. It is required to be noted that the authorized officer in
all the captioned matters have entertained the objections
raised about inclusion of the petitioner societies in the voters
list on the ground that the petitioner society does not qualify
in terms of Section 11(1)(i) of the APMC Act essentially
considering the statement of accounts of three financial years
which is 2023-24, 2024-25, 2025-26 as well as of financial
year 2026-27. The entries of the recovery are reflected in the
aforesaid statement of accounts, however, the authorized
officer has arrived at a finding that there is no dispensing of
credit activity being undertaken by the aforesaid cooperative
societies. It is required to be noted that the provision of
Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, 1963, clearly requires dispensing
agriculture credit to be undertaken by the primary
cooperative society so as to qualify to be included in the
voters list. The term itself clearly means that there has to be
advancing, distributing of the credit in a real sense to the
members for agriculture activities during the relevant period.
It is true that the major act of credit is also recovery of an old
loan, however, at the most it can be treated as an
administrative function but cannot be read as a proactive
advancement of fresh credit. It is required to be noted that
the prefix term dispensing appears before the term
Page 22 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
agriculture credit , which clearly suggests that the intention of
legislation was the proactive dispensing of the credit loan to
be continued during the relevant period by primary
cooperative societies.
14. At this stage, it would be appropriate to revisit the
relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Ishwarbhai Narayanbhai Patel
versus State of Gujarat and others reported in 2021
AIGLHC 243416 , wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has
observed that the society must have actually committed the
activity of lending money/credit before qualifying cut off date
of election declaration.
15. At this stage, it would be appropriate to consider the
conclusion by the Hon’ble Division Bench drawn on the issue
which reads as under:
“58 xxx. We once again place a lot of emphasis on the
phrase "dispensing agricultural credit in the market
area". The legislature has used the present continuous
tense by using the suffix "ing". This indicates an activity
which has started and continues on the cut-off / relevant
date and in the future. As held by the Supreme Court in
Deepak Agarwal (supra), the present perfect continuous
tense is used for a position which began at sometime in
the past and is still continuing. The use of the present
progressive tense is to denote something which is taking
place at present. We find it extremely difficult to
subscribe to the view of the learned Single Judge that the
dispensation likely to occur in future would meet with the
eligibility criteria, as prescribed under Section 11 of the
Act, 1963.”
16. In view of the aforesaid legal principles, in the opinion
of this Court, merely collecting the past dues of an inactive or
Page 23 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
dormant license does not satisfy the requirement of an active
credit dispensing activity. It is also required to be noted that
in view of the amendment brought in Section 11(1)(i) by virtue
of Amendment Act 2015, the intention of the legislation was to
permit the actual primary agriculture credit cooperative
society, who are actively involved in dispensing agriculture
credit through the proper cooperative framework, to be
qualified. In these circumstances, merely because the
petitioner cooperative societies have continued to recover the
outstanding dues without any new disbursement, it fails to
meet the test of an active credit dispensing society.
17. Having held so, this Court is of the considered opinion
that looking to the scope of judicial review in absence of
delivery in decision making process as regards order being
ultra vires or violating principles of natural justice, this Court
does not find error being committed by respondent authorities
in passing order of exclusion of petitioner societies as not
qualified. Even otherwise there does not exist any exceptional
circumstances so as to interfere in exercise of power of
judicial review which is otherwise a basic structure of the
Constitution in such cases, more particularly in the election
process. This Court ordinarily would not like to exercise its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the
process of election has been set in motion.
18. In view of the above discussions, the petitions are not
entertained. However, it is clarified that in case if the
petitioners intend to avail the efficacious statutory remedy
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/12244/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2026
(GJHC240625092026)
available under the law in view of Rule 28 of the APMC Rules,
1965, by preferring an election petition before the Election
Tribunal, it shall always be open for the petitioners to avail
such remedy. In case if such remedy is availed by the
petitioners, any observations made by this Court in the
present proceedings shall not come in the way of the
concerned Tribunal to decide the election petition strictly in
accordance with the law on its own merits.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions being devoid of
merit, are dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ
th
petitions, the interim order dated 25 September 2026 and
30.09.2026 passed by this Court is modified by directing the
election officer to proceed with the declaration of the outcome
of the result.
20. With these observations, the petitions are disposed of.
sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 19:34:12 IST 2026