A cooperative society with an unlawfully selected managing committee is ineligible for APMC voter-list inclusion.

The petitions challenged Election Officer orders dated 24 August and 5 September 2026 concerning the voters list for the Deodar Agricultural Produce Market Committee election.

The petitioner societies objected to the inclusion of respondent No. 5 society’s managing-committee members and challenged the exclusion of members of the petitioner societies.

Their objections raised, among other matters, whether the societies met the eligibility requirements under Section 11(1)(iii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, and whether respondent No. 5’s managing committee had been validly constituted

The Election Officer accepted respondent No. 5’s objections and included its members, but rejected the petitioner societies’ claims.

The State and respondent No. 5 argued that the petitions were premature because an election petition under Rule 28 was the appropriate remedy

1. Whether the Election Officer’s inclusion of respondent No. 5’s managing-committee members and non-inclusion of the petitioner societies’ members in the APMC voters list were lawful

2. Whether exceptional circumstances justified the High Court’s intervention under Article 226 despite the availability of an election petition under Rule 28

Section 11(1)(iii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 sets the eligibility requirements for representatives of cooperative marketing societies in an APMC voters list, including conformity with the society’s objects, the prescribed audit classification, qualifying agricultural-produce transactions with at least one-third of its members in the market yard during each of the preceding three financial years, and the prescribed minimum business.

Section 74 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 requires the managing committee to be constituted in accordance with the statutory framework; the Court held that the relevant committee members were required to be elected, and that selected or co-opted members could not claim the voting entitlement at issue.

Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 provides an election-petition remedy, but the availability of that remedy does not bar writ review where exceptional circumstances—such as arbitrary action, mala fides, or breach of law—are shown.

The Court considered the principles on judicial review during an election process discussed in *Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar*, (2000) 8 SCC 216, and the Full Bench decision in *Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. v. R.D. Rohit*

The Court considered the merits first and found exceptional circumstances warranting review.

Although it concluded that respondent No. 5’s amended area of operation and the transaction evidence did not, by themselves, disqualify it under Section 11(1)(iii), the society had increased its managing committee by selection rather than election.

Applying Section 74, the Court held that this invalidated the committee’s entitlement to participate in the APMC voters list; the Election Officer had failed to examine that specific objection

As to the petitioner societies in the connected matters, the Court held that the Election Officer had improperly discounted their records merely because bank statements were not produced.

The audited accounts and other material were sufficient to assess the statutory requirements, and a summary inquiry did not justify disregarding that evidence

It quashed the orders dated 24 August and 5 September 2026 and directed the Election Officer to amend the voters list by excluding respondent No. 5 society and including the petitioner societies in SCA Nos. 13325, 13327 and 13329 of 2026