APMC voter eligibility requires active agricultural-credit disbursement; recovery of past dues alone is insufficient.

The petitioner societies sought inclusion of their managing-committee members in the agriculturists’ constituency voters’ list for the APMC, Bhabhar elections. Their names were initially included in the preliminary list, but, following objections, the Authorized Officer excluded them on the ground that the societies had not established qualifying agricultural-credit activity.

During the proceedings, the High Court directed that the relevant votes be kept separately in sealed covers and later restrained declaration of the election result pending its decision.

Whether, under Section 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, recovery of earlier loans, without fresh credit disbursement, satisfies the requirement that a primary agricultural credit cooperative society be “dispensing agricultural credit” in the market area.

Whether the Authorized Officer could require material showing genuine, active credit-disbursing activity and whether the exclusion orders warranted interference under Article 226.

Section 11(1)(i) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 requires a primary agricultural credit cooperative society to be dispensing agricultural credit in the relevant market area; the Court construed “dispensing” as requiring active credit advancement, rather than merely collecting past dues.

Sections 2(7A) and 44A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 informed the Court’s conclusion that a qualifying society may lend from its own funds where legally permitted; reliance on a District Central Cooperative Bank or a three-tier lending route is not, by itself, an eligibility condition.

The Court also applied the Division Bench’s interpretation in Ishwarbhai Narayanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, which emphasised actual lending before the relevant election cut-off date and read “dispensing” as a continuing activity.

Judicial review was confined to defects in the decision-making process, and Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 provided an election-petition remedy.

The Court distinguished the source of a society’s funds from proof that it was actually dispensing credit: own-fund lending could be permissible, but the society still had to establish genuine credit activity.

The records showed recoveries during the relevant financial years, but the Court held that recovery of old loans, without fresh disbursement, was at most an administrative function and did not establish active credit advancement as required by Section 11(1)(i).

Applying Ishwarbhai Narayanbhai Patel, the Court found that the statutory language required lending activity to be continuing at the relevant time.

It found no qualifying error in the Authorized Officer’s decision-making process and declined writ interference while the election process was underway, leaving the societies to pursue the statutory remedy.

It dismissed all three petitions and modified the interim orders to permit the Election Officer to declare the election results; the societies remained free to bring election petitions under Rule 28, to be decided on their merits.