Prashant P.D. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 39a(4) & 121: [d.v.shylendra kumar,j] conduct of elections postponing elections in respect of co-operative society on the ground that there is coinciding of programme of election process of societies with programme of election process to parliament held, election programme of parliament cannot be equated to the publication of calendar of events to hold the parliamentary elections. when once the dates and the other programmes for conducting elections to the parliament, it has to be necessarily understood that the election programme in general has begun. programme is a word of larger connotation and within this election programme, the calendar of events also are fitted in and the duration of calendar of events is part of this programme. section 121: [d.v. shylendra kumar,j].....orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. writ petitions either by private co-operative societies registered under the provisions of the karnataka co-operative societies act, 1959 (for short, 'the act') or members of such societies.2. writ petitioners are all aggrieved that election process for electing office-bearers who constitute the committee of management in the societies while in progress and which was required to be completed in terms of the statutory provision fifteen days before the end of the co-operative year for each year which coincides with the financial year and ending by the 31st of march each year has been interfered by the state government by issue of a notification dated 4-3-2009, copy of which is produced as one of the annexures in all these writ petitions; that the interference.....

Judgment:
ORDER

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

1. Writ petitions either by private co-operative societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') or members of such societies.

2. Writ petitioners are all aggrieved that election process for electing office-bearers who constitute the committee of management in the societies while in progress and which was required to be completed in terms of the statutory provision fifteen days before the end of the co-operative year for each year which coincides with the financial year and ending by the 31st of March each year has been interfered by the State Government by issue of a notification dated 4-3-2009, copy of which is produced as one of the annexures in all these writ petitions; that the interference is unnecessary, was not warranted; that though the notification recites that the Government has such power to postpone the election process which had already commenced and was in progress till the completion of elections to the Parliament and tracing the power for issue of the notification to Section 39-A(4) of the Act read with Section 121 of the Act and incidentally quotes the provisions of Sections 28-A(4), 28-A(5), 28-B(2), 29-F(4) and 39-A(2) of the Act which are provisions quoted in the context of the references made in the earlier Government notification, particularly, for issue of two earlier notifications dated 17-1-2009 and 2-2-2009 and also to relieve the societies and their management from the rigor of operation of some of the penal or adverse provisions referred to above; that the power in fact has not been properly utilised, that the order has been issued mechanically without showing awareness to the actual situation prevailing, without even being satisfied as to whether such postponement was necessary or otherwise and the power having been exercised in a mechanical manner akin to exercise of power in an arbitrary manner and therefore the notification suffers from such legal defects and it has to be quashed.

3. The members of the co-operative societies who are all very keen on contesting the elections, getting themselves elected to be in the management of the society and perhaps who had made considerable preparation for the same being quite naturally disappointed with the development have questioned the legality of the notification so that if the notification is held to be bad and quashed, the election process can be completed without any impediment and in this context had also sought for an interim order to stay the operation of the impugned notification.

4. This Court had admitted the petitions for examination by issue of rule and had also stayed the operation of the notification pending further orders.

5. The respondent-State and its officers being served, they are represented by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General and statement of objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 5598 of 2009.

6. The statement of objections seeks to defend the validity of the notification; that the State Government had examined the situation having regard to the requirement of the elections to the co-operative societies to be conducted within the time stipulated under the Act and in this background having issued two notifications earlier indicating the possible programme schedule for holding elections to the primary and secondary societies-Federal Co-operative Societies and Apex Co-operative Societies which constitute the hierarchy of the co-operative societies in the State and when that process was in progress with the election to the Parliament having been announced, it had become necessary for the State Government to further intervene in the matter and in the larger public interest such intervention was necessary having regard to the announcement of the election programme to the Parliament by the Election Commission of India and having regard to the consequential duties and responsibilities of the Government, it became necessary for the Government to issue the notification dated 4-3-2009; that the Government was quite conscious of the developments and notification has been issued as it was necessary and in a proper exercise of the power conferred on the Government under the provisions of Section 39-A(4) of the Act; that the notification is well-sustained with reference to the powers of the Government under this provision of law read with Section 121 of the Act; that the power has been exercised in a bona fide manner; that the decision of the Government to issue a notification of this nature has been taken only in the larger public interest and not with reference to the effect or consequence on any particular society; that the impugned order is one to sub-serve the democratic norms and principles and as the situation warranted the same, there is no merit in the writ petitions and have pleaded for dismissal of the writ petitions.

7. It is in this background the State Government has also moved an application seeking for vacating the interim order of stay and it is indicated therein with the announcement of the election programme to the Parliament, with the issue of the press note by the Election Commission on 2-3-2009, the model code of conduct has come into force and it was the obligation of the State Government to keep the men and machinery of the State Government at the disposal of the Election Commission; that having regard to this obligation and the duty of the State Government and taking note of the fact that conducting elections to more than 6791 co-operative societies in the State simultaneously when the elections to the Parliament is also taking place could become an arduous task for the State Government, the State Government had issued the notification putting on hold the election process to the co-operative societies; that the interim order which has the effect of imposing a restriction on the Government would complicate the situation; that the State Government may not be able to ensure orderly conduct of elections both to the Parliament and simultaneously when elections are being conducted to as many as 6791 co-operative societies in the State; that the State Government having exercised the power in a bona fide manner and for the necessary purpose, interim order granted by this Court staying operation of the notification dated 4-3-2009 is required to be vacated; that the State Government by taking note of the possible practical difficulties that may arise, has postponed the elections by the notification as the non-holding of the elections within the stipulated time could have resulted in deleterious consequences on the persons and management of the society and would have also necessitated the State Government to act by appointing administrators once the duration of the earlier management would come to an end statutorily, and to avoid such practical difficulties, the notification had been issued and stay of such notification would virtually defeat such purpose and therefore the interim order should be vacated.

8. Some of the writ petitioners who had the benefit of the interim order have moved this Court for further directions contending, inter alia, that the interim order granted by this Court has not really served the purpose as the election process which had taken place earlier and which had been interceded by the notification has not been resumed by some of the Returning Officers on the premise that the interim order granted by this Court does not compel them to continue the election process from the earlier stage and therefore have sought for such positive directions.

9. Issue of such directions is opposed on the part of the State Government and what is pointed out on behalf of the State Government is that when the State Government has moved an application for vacating the interim order itself, there is no question of issue of further directions and unless the application for vacating interim order is examined and ordered, there cannot be issue of any further directions.

10. In this background, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State have agreed that instead of passing further interim orders, the matter can be taken up for disposal and can be disposed of,

11. Accordingly, I have heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners, M/s. S. Srinivasa Murthy, Venkatesh R. Bhagat, Mahesh R. Uppin, Anand M. Sholapurmath, D.R. Basavarajappa, Sriramappa, Raghu Prasad B.S., N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Sachin Kedilaya for KM. Nataraj, learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State and its officers.

12. Submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the power under Section 39-A(4) of the Act has been exercised in a mechanical manner; that the State Government has not really examined the need for issue of a notification in the exercise of its powers under Section 39-A(4) of the Act; that it was absolutely not necessary at all to issue a notification of this nature as having regard to the date of elections to be held to send representatives to the Parliament in the constituencies in the State of Karnataka for which polling dates are fixed to be on 23-4-2009 and 30-4-2009, the actual election process for the Parliamentary elections would begin only after the election process for electing the members of the managing committees of the societies will have come to an end; that the elections to elect members of the managing committee of the petitioner-societies would come to an end by or before the 31st March, 2009 and no interference will be caused with the elections to the Parliament as by that date elections to the societies will be completed; that even when there was no real need for issue of a notification under Section 39-A(4) of the Act, the State Government has issued the notification only because it had the power; that in respect of majority of the societies in the State, the calendar of events had already been issued and the election process was in progress; that there was absolutely no justification to put on hold the election process which had begun in terms of the calendar of events that had been issued by the returning officers appointed in respect of each of the society and even without examining the actual situation, issue of a notification of the nature impugned in these petitions is an improper exercise of statutory power; that putting an hold the election process/programme in respect of all co-operative societies in general is not at all an informed exercise of power under the provisions of the Act and therefore the notification should be quashed.

13. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for petitioners that neither the provisions of Section 39-A(4) of the Act nor the provisions of Section 121 of the Act empowers the State Government to issue a notification to postpone all elections in general and even without examining the situation; that postponement of the elections in respect of all societies irrespective of the present stage of the election process in respect of the societies is an order not sustainable on the strength of the provisions of Sections 39-A(4) and 121 of the Act.

14. It is in this context, learned Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and Ors. : AIR 1952 SC 64 and Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of K. Channaiah and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : 2000(5) Kar. L.J. 390.

15. Drawing sustenance from these judgments, submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that when once the election process has begun, particularly, by issue of calendar of events, that cannot be in any way given a go by or altered; that it should be allowed to be completed as per the publication of calendar of events and therefore the interference in terms of Section 39-A(4) of the Act is bad in law; that it was really not warranted; that the exercise of power is more mechanical and a reference to the earlier notifications is really not germane to the issue on hand; that no sustenance can be drawn from the earlier notifications for any interference or postponement of any elections to the co-operative societies.

16. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the power is traceable not only to Section 39-A(4) but also to Section 121 of the Act; that there cannot be any dispute that the Election Commission has announced the dates for holding polls for electing representatives to the Parliament by the people; that the Election Commission has issued such notification and the State Government has also been notified; that it is the duty of the State Government to keep at the disposal of the Election Commission the men and machinery required for conducting the elections to the Parliament in an orderly and efficient manner; that the resources of the State are to be conserved for such purpose and at that time if any other distractions are put in place including the responsibility of holding elections to the co-operative societies, it may to that extent affect the support of the State machinery for the conduct of elections to the Parliament and it is only having regard to this need and necessity on the part of the State Government, a notification has been issued; that the notification has been issued only on showing proper awareness to the situation and is a proper exercise of the power under Section 39-A(4) of the Act.

17. It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 121 of the Act confers on the State Government the power to relax the applicability of any of the provisions of the Act on any society or class of societies; that the Government can by issue of orders to this effect to exempt all co-operative societies from the operation of any of the provisions if such is the enabling power; that the power exercised for mere postponement of elections cannot be characterised as a power either not available or not exercised in a proper manner and it is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the challenge to the validity of the notification; that the interim order granted by this Court has affected the functioning of the State Government for the purpose of supporting the elections to the Parliament particularly with the different Returning Officers for different societies taking their own decisions and such decisions being not uniform, it can affect larger public interest and could create further complications and therefore the interim order is required to be vacated and the writ petitions dismissed.

18. However, during the course of the arguments, the State Government having realised that to the extent of there being no interference or no additional responsibility or liability placed on the State Government by the coincidence of the programme of elections to the Parliament with the programme of elections to the societies which was already in progress has indicated that if there was no real interference with the election process that had already commenced in respect of some of the petitioners-societies and if it had by now completed with the declaration of results as on today also the State Government is not keen on enforcing the notification and to that extent the State Government is prepared to relent on the enforcement of the notification and in this regard has also placed a memo to this effect on record.

19. However, it is submitted by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that insofar as elections to the societies whose election results has not already been declared by today, in view of the intervening notification and with the date for the Parliamentary elections drawing closer, it may not be possible to adopt the same stand in respect of such other societies and the notification will have to operate till the completion of the election to the Parliament and thereafter the Returning Officers may cause issue of fresh calendar of events and the election process may begin afresh for other societies.

20. It is only in this background of limited concession made by the State Government, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the logic equally applies to the other societies whose election process could come to an end by 31st March, 2009 and within which time no real process or deployment of men and machinery is required and therefore the notification cannot come in the way of completion of elections to the societies whose election process can be completed by or before 31st March, 2009 and if the State Government is not inclined to relent to this extent, the validity of the notification on the touchstone of the need and necessity for issue of the same and on the touchstone of the State Government having not bestowed its attention and having not exercised power in a proper manner and for the proper purpose has to be answered.

21. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that the election programme of elections to the Parliament can be said to commence only with the publication of calendar of events and not at any time earlier; that the announcement by the Election Commission about fixing the dates for elections to the Parliament by itself cannot amount to the commencement of the programme of elections to the Parliament and therefore submits that till the calendar of events for the conduct of elections to the Parliament is published, the power under Section 39-A(4) of the Act is not available to the State Government to issue notification of the nature impugned in these writ petitions and therefore the notification should be quashed.

22. Section 39-A(4) of the Act reads as under:

39-A. Conduct of elections.-......(4) Where due to scarcity, drought, flood, fire or any other natural calamities or rainy season or any election programme of the State Legislative Assembly or Council or Parliament or Local Authority coinciding with the election programme of any society or class of societies, or in public interest the elections are to be postponed, the State Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or rule or bye-laws, by general or special order postpone the election of any society or class of societies for a period not exceeding six months at a time and in any case not exceeding two years in aggregate.

23. If any election programme of Parliament coincides with any election programme of any society or class of societies, the State Government may postpone the elections of any society or class of societies for a period not exceeding six months at any time in any case not exceeding two years in aggregate.

24. A perusal of this provision clearly indicates that the State Government has power under this section to postpone the elections the moment there is coinciding of the programme of election process of the societies with the programme of election process to the Parliament. That position is not in dispute. What is disputed is that there is no coinciding with the programme of the two elections.

25. While the power is definitely available, the manner in which the power is to be exercised is indicated in the subsequent words that the notification can be to postpone the election to any society or class of societies.

26. A general election to the Parliament undoubtedly clearly covers the entire State and therefore the affectation if it is there cannot be at variance from one society or one class of societies to another, which are all within this State.

27. Though it is submitted by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that except for two Central Co-operative Societies the election programme for all other societies would come to an end by 31st March of the year and therefore there is no coincidence, as election programme for the Parliament has not yet commenced, it is rather difficult to accept this argument for the reason that an election programme to the Parliament cannot be equated to the publication of calendar of events to hold the Parliamentary elections. Under the scheme of our Constitution, responsibility for holding the elections to the Parliament is vested in the Election Commission of India-an autonomous constitutional authority. It is that body which decides the programme of elections. Statutory provisions under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act governs further aspects of the matter. When once the constitutional body vested with the authority and responsibility to conduct elections to the Parliament announces the dates and the other programmes for conducting elections to the Parliament, it has to be necessarily understood that the election programme in general has begun. Programme is a word of larger connotation and within this election programme, the calendar of events also are fitted in and the duration of calendar of events is part of this programme. It is for this reason I am not accepting the submission on behalf of the petitioners that election programme means only issue of calendar of events.

28. Reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in N.K. Ponnuswami's case is not of any avail to the petitioners to advance this argument as N.K. Ponnuswami's case is not an authority to hold that election programme of the Parliament is equivalent to the calendar of events for election to the Parliament.

29. In N.K. Ponnuswami's case, the Supreme Court was examining the meaning and scope of the phrase 'election' as it occurs in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and in the background of the Constitutional embargo placed on Courts under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India to examine the validity of the elections except in the manner provided for by a law made by the appropriate Legislature and the Supreme Court held that the word 'election' does include the stage of acceptance or rejection of nominations and therefore challenge to an election based on a wrong rejection of the nomination paper can also be made subject-matter of an election petition before the prescribed authority and not a matter for examination by the Courts, in the present situation, while the provisions of Article 329 of the Constitution of India are not attracted at all, as the elections are to the management committee of private co-operative societies, more importantly, the very statutory provision i.e., Section 39-A(4) of the Act enables and confers power on the State Government to issue a notification to put on hold the election process in progress to the co-operative societies and if condition mentioned in Section 39-A(4) of the Act are in existence.

30. It is therefore I hold that the reliance placed on N.K. Ponnuswami's case is of no avail to the petitioners but on the other hand it can only be a guide to hold that election programme as it occurs in Section 39-A(4) of the Act can definitely include the period from the date on which the Election Commission of India announces the dates of polling for holding of elections to the Parliament.

31. While it may be that elections to some of the societies which had already begun and for which calendar of events had been notified and was in progress and the notification dated 4-3-2009 interfered with that, the staying of the notification by this Court would to that extent had lifted the embargo, but the manner in which the stay order has been either understood or implemented by the different Returning Officers has led to further complications in the matter.

32. But that as it may, it cannot be said that the notification dated 4-3-2009 per se becomes bad as in some cases the election process could have been completed without there being any interference or any affectation on the Government machinery.

33. While the words 'any society of class of societies' as it figures either in Section 39-A(4) or even in Section 121 of the Act definitely indicates that the power given in these two provisions are not powers of general nature but powers which are required to be exercised having regard to the nature of situation of class of societies in respect of which notification is being issued, in a given case it may so happen that class of societies may be large enough as to include all societies also, but that in itself will not relieve the State Government of its responsibility to apply its, mind to the situation and then issue of a notification of this nature. It is also not necessary to go into the incidental question of scope of power under Section 121 of the Act which has been referred to in the impugned notification. So far as the present notification is concerned, the Court is satisfied that such power is available even without any reference to Section 121 of the Act and other provisions but only with reference to Section 39-A(4) of the Act' and there has been awareness shown by the respondent-State to the need for exercising this power.

34. It is not the function of the Court to go into the question of the availability of the kind of resources or manpower with the State Government, whether it could have deployed available manpower in such judicious manner so as to be able to conduct both elections without any hindrance simultaneously as such questions are not normally subject-matters . for judicial review, as they are essentially administrative matters and until and unless the Court is satisfied that the power is exercised in a mala fide manner for ulterior purposes, such examinations are not undertaken.

35. In the present case, as even the petitioners are not suggesting mala fide exercise of power for ulterior purposes, but are content with challenging the notification on the parameters of the proper exercise of the power within the limits of the statutory provision, those questions do not arise and therefore the notification cannot be found fault with on Such premise.

36. Though it is contended by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State that the State Government has the power to postpone the elections to any class of society or all societies and even to relieve all the obligations under any of the statutory provisions required to be fulfilled by any society or class of Society with reference to the powers available under Section 39-A(4) read with Section 121 of the Act and with use of powers under these provisions, the State Government can provide relief or exemption to any society from the operation of the provisions of the notification under Sections 28-A(4), 28-A(5), 28-B(2); 29-F(4) and 39-A(2) of the Act, submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the State Government does not have any general power to postpone the elections to all societies by deriving power under Section 39-A(4) of the Act. The power under this provision is only to enable the State Government to exercise the power to postpone elections in respect of a particular society or class of societies and while in a given situation like the present one, the class of societies may happen to be the societies located throughout the State as elections to the Parliament takes place throughout the State, by that logic, a general power in respect of all societies for postponement of elections cannot be read into the provisions of Section 39-A(4) of the Act enabling the State Government to exercise powers totally at variance with the other provisions of the Act.

37. Likewise, power conferred on the State Government under Section 121 of the Act is only to grant selective exemption from some of the provisions of the Act in respect of an identified society or class of identified societies and this power again is not a power which can be exercised in general as though a parallel governance/regulation can be carried out by the State Government in respect of the societies in the State by deriving power under Section 121 of the Act. The powers under Section 121 of the Act cannot be utilised by the State Government for the purpose of giving a go by to the scheme of the Act or to rewrite all other provisions of the Act. This is a limited power available for exercising in a given situation in respect of a given society or class of societies and having regard to the circumstances in which particular society or class of societies are situated.

38. Even on a combined reading of these two provisions, it cannot be said that the State Government gets the power to regulate the conduct of elections to the societies in the State as indicated in the earlier two notifications referred to in the impugned notification. Though the question directly does not arise for examination in these writ petitions, as the issue of the present notification is based on the earlier two notifications and makes a reference to the earlier two notifications and arguments are also addressed before the Court to sustain the exercise of power under the impugned notification with reference to the two statutory provisions examined above, it has become necessary to indicate the scope of operation of both Sections 39-A(4) as well as Section 121 of the Act.

39. It is made clear that the State Government purporting to exercise powers under these two provisions cannot act contrary to the statutory provisions, either of sub-sections to the provisions of Section 39-A of the Act or even contrary to the provisions of Sections 29-A, 29-B, 29-C, 29-E, 29-F, 29-G and other allied provisions of the Act.

40. It is not even the case of the State Government that but for issue of the notification of the nature referred to as reference No. 1 in the impugned notification that elections to the co-operative societies in the State could not have taken place. Even otherwise in terms of the provisions of Section 39-A of the Act, periodic elections to elect the management of the society has to take place, that is to say general election in a society to elect the members of the committee of a cooperative society takes place not because of the volition of the State Government by issue of the notification of the nature referred to above but because of the statutory provisions under the Act and it is not open to the State Government to regulate or rewrite the statutory requirements by issue of notifications of the nature referred to as reference No. 1 in the impugned notification and by deriving the powers under Section 39-A(4) read with Section 121 of the Act.

41. It is for this reason, submission and the request of the Additional Advocate General for the State to permit the State Government to direct the Returning Officer to reissue the calendar of events in the wake of the notification cannot be acceded to nor can the State Government said to have such power. The State Government even while acting on the administrative side can only act in aid of and for implementation of the provisions of Section 39-A read with Sections 28-A(4), 28-A(5), 28-B(2), 29-F(4) and 39-A(2) of the Act and cannot be permitted to act otherwise.

42. Even the authorities referred to and relied upon by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General in the case of Shivasharanappa Veerabhadrappa and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Returning Officer, Bidar and Ors. 1978(1) Kar. L.J. 51 and in the case of G. Venkata Naidu v. Bellary Central Co-operative Stores Limited and Ors. 1967(2) Mys. L.J. 256, do not advance the case of the State for supporting the above arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General as it is indicated in these decisions also that a power for granting exemptions cannot be pressed into service as a general power to be exercised in a manner to virtually give a go by to the scheme of the entire Act and the rules which are so provided by an act of legislation.

43. That only leaves with the other question as to what should happen to the election process that had already commenced in many of the petitioner-societies and it may be so in respect of a large number of co-operative societies in the State. It is here that the argument on behalf of the petitioners by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, that the election process once in place particularly after issue of calendar of events should not normally be interfered and should not be set at naught assumes significance.

44. While this is the normal rule, if a statutory power is expressly conferred for any intervention, the principle of non-interference in an election process, particularly, by Courts in respect of a relief which the petitioners could obtain through an election dispute before the Election Tribunal does not apply.

45. In situations where statutory provisions specifically enables postponement of the election programme even if was in place, examination is not about availability of the power but the manner of exercise of that power.

46. In the present case, both the availability of power being answered in favour of the State Government and the exercise of power being not one that can be characterised as a mala fide exercise of power, it is only the consequence that remains to be examined.

47. Power is only to postpone the election and not for annulling the election or set at naught the election process and that too postponement because of coincidence of the two election programmes. Therefore, once the coincidence aspect comes to an end, the election process which had been interceded and which had been put on hold should necessarily continue.

48. Though on behalf of the State Government it is submitted by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Additional Advocate General that the State Government is more inclined to direct issue of fresh calendar of events wherein the election results had not been declared by today and that will be made in general, submission cannot be accepted for the reason that an election process once begun and which had come to a certain stage in the midst of the calendar of events cannot be set at naught unless it has become impossible to resume the same from that stage.

49. In the present case, such is not the stand of the State Government but is only of convenience. When it comes to the question of convenience, balance of convenience is more on the part of the petitioners as the elections are to private co-operative societies and it is the members of private co-operative societies who are participating in the election process and who are aspiring for being elected to the committee of management, an aspiration which is part of the democratic process and on the part of the Government if at all the role is to provide supervisory manpower in the form of Returning Officers and other machineries. This is an obligation which the State Government has to fulfil under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is not a difficulty that can be pleaded by the State Government for the sake of convenience; that it is more convenient for the State Government to direct the Returning Officers to start afresh by issue of fresh calendar of events.

50. It is for this reason I hold that the notification dated 4-3-2009 while can put on hold the election process from the date on which the notification was issued i.e., with effect from 4-3-2009 and all election process to a co-operative society including the calendar of events are freezed on this day, once the embargo is lifted the election process and the calendar of events can be worked from that stage thereafter, to complete the same in accordance with the dates notified in the earlier calendar of events with the interregnum being taken as postponement of the dates.

51. There is no question of a fresh calender of events being issued in respect of those societies for which calendar of events had already been issued and which had been worked to some stage.

52. It is also brought to the notice of the Court by learned Counsel for some of the writ petitioners that in respect of some societies the Returning Officers acting on the interim order granted by this Court had issued fresh calendar of events and that was also in progress etc.

53. It is made clear that on examination of the merits of these petitions and on examining the legality of the Government notification and in the light of the stand taken by the Government, notwithstanding the notification dated 4-3-2009, in respect of societies wherein the calendar of events had been issued and pursuant therewith the elections were conducted and results are announced by today, such results stand without being affected. In respect of all other co-operative societies where calendar of events had been issued and election results had not been announced by today inclusive of today, the calendar of events are taken to be put on hold as from 4-3-2009 and should be continued from the stage upto which the election process had reached as on 4-3-2009, once the embargo is lifted under the notification dated 4-3-2009.

54. In this context, as the notification dated 4-3-2009 has not indicated the outer limit of the operation of the notification and which generally indicates that the notification will be in operation till the code of conduct is in place in the context of the election to the 15th Lok Sabha, it will be necessary for the State Government to make it more precise and for the purposes of clarity and removing confusion as to from what date the notification ceases to have effect, significance being from that day onwards, the election process will be resumed in respect of all societies from the stage calendar of events had come to a halt with the issue of the notification dated 4-3-2009. The State Government is directed to issue a notification publishing the date on and after which the notification dated 4-3-2009 ceases to operate. It is expected the State Government will publish a notification of this nature at least two weeks before so that the aspirants will be knowing as to when they can pursue their aspirations.

55. All actions inconsistent with the directions above and contrary whether by the Returning Officers or by any other official of the State Government stands quashed. Only directions issued as above to operate.

56. It is made clear that the above directions operate notwithstanding interim order granted by this Court in some of the cases earlier where the societies and its members had approached this Court and also in all other cases of the rest of the societies who had not approached this Court i.e., the directions operate in rem.

57. Writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions issued above. Rule made absolute to the extent indicated above.