ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the order at Annexure-D dated 1.10.2004 passed by the 1st respondent in No. RSR:SA:135;XAR- 04-05, in so far as appointing the administrator as returning officer for conducting the election of the 3rd respondent-Bank. Further to direct the administrator to conduct the election with the returning officer appointed by the petitioner.
2. The only grievance made out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, the petitioner is the Federal Co-operative as constituted under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997. The Federal Co-operative is the main coordinator and regulatory Body, constituted under Section 53 of the Act and the bye-laws of Federal Co- operative are binding on all the Co-operative Societies Registered under the Act, The 3rd respondent herein is a Souhardha Co-operative bank registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997. Be that as it may, after expiry of the term of the 3rd respondent-bank, the 3rd respondent-bank has not conducted the election. The members of the 3rd respondent -bank had come up before this Court, by way of filing Writ Petitions seeking directions to the Registrar to decide the matter in strict compliance of amended Section 26 of the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act. The said Writ Petitions filed by the members of the 3rd respondent- bank were disposed of by this Court by its order dated 16.9.2004. After the disposal of the said Writ Petitions, the 1st respondent exercising his power under Sub-section 2 of Section 26 of the Act, has appointed the Administrator- cum-Returning Officer to conduct the election to the 3rd respondent-bank for the Co-operative year 2004-05 to 2008-09 and to complete the same within three months. When the petitioner came to know about the same, immediately he has given a representation to the 1st respondent bringing to his notice that, the authority has the power to appoint only the Administrator and the power to appoint the Returning Officer vests with the petitioner alone as per Bye-law No.45/1 vide Annexure- E. Inspite of bringing the same to the notice of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent has not taken any action. Therefore, the petitioner felt necessitated to present this Writ Petition, assailing the correctness of Annexure-D, dated 1.10.2004, so far as appointing the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the 3rd respondent- bank.
3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, so far as appointing the Returning Officer is illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction of law. As per Section 53 of the Act, a Federal Co-operative society constituted and all the co-operative are members of Federal Co-operative and the bye-laws of the petitioner are binding on all the members, including the 3rd respondent-bank. Further, he vehemently submitted that, as per Section 53 of the Act, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to make arrangements for holding the election of its members and in that regard, Bye-law provides for appointing the Returning Officer. The 1st respondent has appointed an Administrator as the Returning Officer and now the said Returning Officer has fixed date for holding the election. The entire proceedings are totally without authority of law. The 1st respondent has failed to discharge the statutory duty by appointing the Administrator as the Returning Officer, which is totally opposed to Bye-laws of the petitioner-Federation. Further, he was quick to point out and taken me through Sub-section 1 of Section 26 and submitted that, the board of a co-operative shall conduct elections to elect the succeeding board before the expiry of the term of office of the outgoing board in the manner specified in the byelaws and this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the 1st respondent while appointing the Administrator as the Returning Officer to conduct election to the 3rd respondent-Bank. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned order so far as appointing the Administrator as the Returning Officer to the 3rd respondent-Bank for conducting the election is contrary to the statute and one without jurisdiction and it is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, inter-alia, contended and substantiated the order passed by the 1st respondent on 1.10.2004 vide Annexure-D. Further, he submitted that as per Sub-section 2 of Section 26 of the Act, the Registrar is the competent authority to appoint the Administrator as the Returning Officer to conduct election and accordingly, he has passed the said order. No error or illegality as such has been committed by the 1st respondent, while passing the order.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-bank has submitted that, the 1st respondent has passed the said order in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 26 of the Act. Further, he submitted that, in pursuance of the appointment of the Administrator as the Returning officer to conduct the election to the 3rd respondent-Bank, he has already issued the calendar of events as early as on 5.10.2004. Further, he was quick to point out that, as per amended Sub-section 2 of Section 26 of the Act, the Registrar shall appoint the Administrator immediately for a period not exceeding three months to conduct such election. When the mandatory provisions of the Act has given the power to the Registrar to appoint an Administrator to conduct election, the 1st respondent has rightly invoked the said provision and appointed an Administrator as the Returning Officer. No error or illegality has been committed by the 1st respondent. Further, he submitted that, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding Sub-section 1 of Section 26 of the Act, that the board of a co-operative shall conduct elections to elect the succeeding board before the expiry of the term of office of the outgoing board in the manner specified in the bye-laws. When the board was not in existence and if the board has not taken any decision, the Registrar shall appoint the Returning Officer to conduct the election. The petitioner has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the 1st respondent at this stage and hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.
6. After having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and after careful perusal of the materials available on record and the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent on 1.10.2004 vide Annexure-D, I do not find any error or illegality, much less material irregularity committed by the 1st respondent in appointing an Administrator as the Returning Officer to conduct election to the 3rd respondent-bank. It is significant to note that as per Sub-section 2 of Section 26 of the Act, it is crystal clear that the Registrar shall appoint an Administrator immediately for a period not exceeding three months to conduct such election and by invoking said provision, the 1st respondent has appointed an Administrator as the Returning Officer to conduct the election in consonance with the mandatory provisions of the Act. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has no power to appoint an Administrator as the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the 3rd respondent- Bank. The said order passed by the 1st respondent is in strict compliance of Sub-section 2 of Section 26 of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any material irregularity committed by the 1st respondent in appointing an Administrator as the Returning Officer to conduct the election.
7. So far as the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, as per bye-law 45(1), the petitioner alone has got the power to appoint the Returning Officer and the 1st respondent has no power to appoint an Administrator as the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the 3rd respondent - Bank and the said bye-law was amended by the Registrar alone is concerned, the statute itself is crystal clear and the amendment has given power to the Registrar under Sub-section 2 of Section 26 of the Act, to appoint an administrator immediately for not exceeding three months to conduct such election. The said mandatory provision prevails than the Bye-law. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality committed by the 1st respondent in appointing an Administrator as the Returning Officer for conducting election to the 3rd respondent-bank.
8. For yet another reason, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected at threshold is that, in pursuance of the appointment of the Returning Officer to conduct election, he has issued the notification for conducting the ejection to the 3rd respondent- Bank as early as on 5. 10.2004 and the election process is set in motion and hence the interference at this stage, by this Court is jot justifiable.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within two Weeks from today.