Karnataka High Court
Sri B G Anjinappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2023
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.20352 OF 2023 (CS-EL/M)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.20838 OF 2023 (CS-EL/M)
IN WP NO.20352/2023
BETWEEN
1 . LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O G NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
SAI LAYOUT, JIGALA ROAD,
ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO: 2098
2 . KOMALA MOHAN
W/O MURALI MOHAN REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
TILAK NAGAR, SARJAPUR ROAD,
ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO: 2321
3 . MURALI MOHAN REDDY
S/O MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO: 2320
2
4 . R GOPALAPPA
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
MAYASANDRA VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO: 873
5 . M MUKUNDA
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO: 2015
6 . V ANAND
LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO 2332
7 . A Y SURESH
S/O YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
AMBEDKAR COLONY,
ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO 401
8 . R CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PARVATHI NAGAR,ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO 2130
3
9 . R MUNISWAMY
S/O RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
ICCHANGURU VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO 190
10 N SHIVAKUMAR
. S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
NBR LAYOUT, INDALEBELE ROAD,
ATTIBELE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562107
MEMBERSHIP NO 663
PEITTIONERS ARE MEMBERES OF
SHRI JAYABHARATHI EDUCATIONAL
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD
ATHIBELE ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE 562107
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE DEPT OF CO OPERATION,
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU 01,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA CO OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTORITY
2ND FLOOR, SHANTINAGAR BUS STOP,
BENGALURU 560027
BY ITS COMMISISONER
4
3. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES BENGALURU CIRCLE 3
CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
NO 146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA,
MARGOSA ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560003
4. THE CO OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER CUM RETURNING OFFICER
SHRI JAYABHARATHI EDUCATIONAL
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD
ATHIBELE ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE 562107
5. SHI JAYABHARATHI EDUCATIONAL
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD
ATHIBELE ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE 562107,
BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA
CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W
SRI SIDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1, R3, R4
SRI T L KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI D K SRIRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5
SRI K N PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANTS ON IA 3/2023)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-
C IN NO.DRB-3 / CHUNAVANE / RE. AH-47/2023-24 DTD
08.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE R3 WITH DRAWING THE CALENDAR
OF EVENTS DTD 03.07.2023 ISSUED AS PER ANNEXURE-A
FIXING DATE OF ELECTION AS 15.09.2023 TO THE R5 SOCIETY
AND ETC.
5
IN WP NO.20838/2023
BETWEEN
1. SRI B G ANJINAPPA
S/O GUNDAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
EX - PRESIDENT,
BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562107.
2. SRI. M MUKUNDA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
EX- VICE PRESIDENT,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR
MAHCNAHANAHALLI ROAD,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562107.
3. SRI. V. VENKATESH
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
TREASURER
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY ROAD
CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU - 562107.
4. SRI MANJUNATH REDDY
S/O SHAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
EX DIRECTOR, MAYURA BAKERY
SARJAPURA ROAD, ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562107.
5. SMT. SHASHIKALA NARAYANASWAMY
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
EX DIRECTOR, BEHIND
6
MUNESHWARA TEMPLE
ANEKAL ROAD, ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562107.
6. SRI Y NARAYANAYA REDDY
S/O YELLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
EX DIRECTOR, KAMBALIPURA VILLAGE,
MAYASANDRA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562107.
7. SRI B.G. ANIL KUMAR
S/O GULLAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
EX DIRECTOR, BALLURU VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562107.
8. SRI. V. ANAND
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
EX DIRECTOR
BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562107
9. SRI GOVINDARAJ
S/O JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
EX DIRETOR, ANEKAL ROAD
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562107.
10 . SRI. B.K. RANGASWAMY
S/O KADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
EX DIRETOR, BALAGARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NERALURU POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562107.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI VARUN JAYAKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
7
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560052.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
3RD CIRCLE, BANGALORE DISTRICT
NO.146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA
2ND FLOOR, 8TH CROSS,
3RD MAIN ROAD, MARGOSA ROAD
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560003
4. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE
ELECTION AUTHORITY
3RD FLOOR TTMC A BLOCK,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. THE JAYABHARATHI EDUCATION
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959
6. THE RETURNIN OFFICER/CO-OPERATIVE
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
JAYABHRATHI EDUCATION
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
8
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562107
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W
SRI SIDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1, R2, R3 & R6
SRI T L KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI D K SRIRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS / ORDER BEARING NO. DRB-3 /
CHUNAVANE / RI.A-47/2023-24 DATED 08/09/2023 PASSED BY
R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2023 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The reliefs sought for by the petitioners in WP
No.20352/2023 are as under:
"i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing
Annexure-C in No.DRB-3/Chunavane/Re. ah-
47/2023-24 dated 08.09.2023 issued by the 3rd
respondent with drawing the Calendar of Events
dated 03.07.2023 issued as per Annexure-A fixing
date of Election as 15.09.2023 to the 5th
respondent society.
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the
respondents No.2 to 4 directing to conduct and
complete the Elections to 5th respondent society in
terms of scheduled Calendar of Events issued as
per Annexure-A dated 03.07.2023 fixing date of
Election as 15.09.2023 to the 5th respondent
society.
iii) Issue any other incidental or
consequential relief/s as deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in aid of the main
relief sought for, in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners in
WP.No.20838/2023 are as under:
"a) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the
impugned proceedings/Order bearing No.DRB-
3/chunavane/RI.A-47/2023-24 dated 08.09.2023
passed by Respondent No.3 vide Annexure J in
the interest of justice and equity.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondent No.6 to conduct the election as per
notification/calendar of events issued at Annexure-
H from the stage at which it was interfered with or
in the alternative direct the Respondent No.6 to
reschedule the dates and conduct of election to
Respondent No.5 society immediately before the
expiry of the term of Petitioners in the interest of
justice and equity.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondents not to take any action against the
petitioners till the elections to Respondent No.5
society are held for the term 2023 to 2028, in the
interest of justice and equity.
d) Issue such other order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances
of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration
of the present writ petitions are that the election to the
fifth respondent - society was held on 15.9.2018. The
CEO of the society vide letter dated 15.2.2023 submitted
draft list of voters to the District Election Officer and vide
letter dated 27.6.2023 requested the District Election
Officer to appoint a Returning Officer. Vide
communication dated 3.7.2023, the District Election
Officer appoints the Returning Officer and a voter list
Verification Officer. Vide order dated 11.8.2023 a Special
Officer has been appointed under Section 31 of the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). On 29.8.2023 the Verification
Officer submits a verified voter list to the District Election
Officer, which is approved by the District Election Officer
on 30.8.2023. Thereafter, on 31.8.2023, the Returning
Officer issued the calendar of events. Vide
communication dated 8.9.2023, the District Election
Officer directs the Returning Officer to postpone the
election. Being aggrieved, the present petitions are filed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil
and Sri D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioners in
the writ petitions submit that once the calendar of events
have been issued on 31.8.2023, it is not open to the
authorities to postpone the election and more so, in the
present case where the District Election Officer has
directed the Returning Officer to postpone the same. It is
further submitted that once the calendar of events is
issued, the District Election Officer loses his jurisdiction to
interfere with the election process and hence, the reliefs
sought for in the present writ petitions are required to be
granted. Learned Senior counsels also made submissions
as to the motive and the reason behind postponing of the
election alleging that there is interference by the State
authorities at the instance of the persons inimical to the
petitioners. In support of their contentions, the learned
Senior Counsels rely on various judgments which shall be
considered during the course of this order.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General,
Smt.Prathima Honnapura appearing for the official
respondents submits that the decision of the District
Election Officer to postpone the election and a direction in
that regard being made to the Returning Officer is
justified having regard to the fact that the society has
failed in complying with the mandatory stipulations
contained under Rule 13D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules') and the persons who are required to cast
their votes in the elections to the fifth respondent -
society have not been clearly identified in a manner
known to law.
6. An impleading application is filed in
IA.No.3/2023 and it is the contention of the impleading
applicants that they are also the members of the society
and they seek to justify the stand taken by the State
authorities.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N.Phanindra
appearing for the impleading applicants justifying the
order for postponement of election submits that the draft
voter list that has been submitted by the society does not
contain the entire list of voters who are required to cast their
votes in the election to the fifth respondent - society and the
entire process that is sought to be undertaken is illegal and
hence, deferment of the election is just and proper. Various
allegations have also been made by the impleading
applicants that the process of election to the society is
riddled with political interference and hence, the election is
sought to be held without the requisite voters being listed in
the eligible voters list.
8. Learned Counsel for the Election Authority,
Sri T.L.Kiran Kumar justifying the action of postponing the
elections and referring to various provisions of the Act,
submits that the society itself having created a situation
where the voters list has not been prepared in
accordance the provisions of the Act and Rules and more
particularly Rule 13D(2-A) of the Rules, the petitioners being
its Board members are not entitled to seek for the reliefs in
the present petition. He further submits that out of a
total of 2716 members, there are 883
eligible members and 1833 ineligible members. Hence, if
the elections are conducted without notifying the ineligible
members as contemplated under Rule 13D(2-A) of the
Rules, the election that would be conducted would not be
in the spirit of the democratic purpose and in the interest
of the society.
9. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the official respondents and the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the impleading applicants have
relied on various judgments, which shall be considered
during the course of this order.
10. Although various submissions are made with
regard to the merits of the process, a primary contention
putforth by the petitioners is the jurisdiction of the District
Election Officer in issuing the order dated 8.9.2023
directing the Returning Officer to postpone the elections.
Hence, the said contention going to the root of the matter
wherein, the authority of the District Election Officer to
issue the order dated 8.9.2023 itself being questioned,
the said aspect is first considered.
11. Before the contentions putforth by the learned
counsel for the parties are considered, it is relevant to
notice the relevant statutory provisions.
12. Section 28A(4) of the Act stipulates that the
term of office of the board shall be 5 years from the date
of election and they shall be deemed to have vacated the
office on completion of the said term.
13. Section 28B of the Act reads as follows:
28B. Board to arrange for election.- (1) The
election of a board, be conducted before the expiry
of the term of the board.
(2) The members of the board who have
failed to make arrangements for election within the
time limit specified in section 39A, shall be deemed
to have vacated their office on the last day of the
time limit so specified and such members shall not
be eligible for election as members of the board for
a period of five years from the date of expiry of
their term.
(3) The Administrator who shall assume
charge under sub-section (5) of section 28A, shall,
as early as possible but within a period of six
months arrange for the constitution of a new board
of the society in accordance with the Act, rules and
the bye-laws.
Provided that the Administrator so appointed
shall not continue for a period beyond three
months in respect of a society in cooperative credit
structure."
14. It is forthcoming that Section 28B of the Act
casts an obligation on the Board of to make arrangements
for the election and if there is failure to make
arrangements, they shall be deemed to have vacated their
office on the last date of the term and a further
disqualification is prescribed by virtue of Section 28B(2) of
the Act disqualifying the members from election as
members of the Board for a period of 5 years from the
expiry of their term.
15. Section 39AA(15) of the Act stipulates as
follows:
"39AA Co-operative Election Commission.-
(15)The board of every cooperative society shall,-
(a) inform the cooperative election [authority] about
the expiry of its term of office at least six months
before the date of expiry of such term;
(b) furnish such books, records and information as
the [authority] may require as per the calendar
prescribed by the Cooperative Election Commission;
and
(c) provide all necessary help, assistance and
cooperation for the smooth preparation of electoral
rolls for and the conduct of elections."
16. Rule 13D(2-A) of the Rules stipulates as
follows:
"13(2-A) The election officer shall take steps for
publication of voter list who are not eligible to vote
in the following manner, namely. -
(i) For publication of draft ineligible electoral list,
the chief executive of every cooperative society
shall prepare notice in respect of members not
attending three out of the last five annual general
body meetings and members not utilizing such
minimum services or facilities in a co-operative
year as specified in the bye laws for three
consecutive cooperative years.
(ii) The chief executive of every co-operative
society shall send above prepared notice to all
ineligible members, fifteen days prior to six months
to the date of election of the board by registered
post and an opportunity shall be given to such
member to file their objections, if any within fifteen
days from the date of notice.
(iii) The chief executive of every cooperative
society shall submit the list of ineligible voters to
the election officer along with their objections and
also produce the records pertaining to absence
from general body meeting with attendance and
services utilized by members. He has to produce
the records for having sent the notice along with
acknowledgement to the election officer within
thirty days from the date of notice as specified by
the election officer.
(iv) The chief executive of every cooperative
society shall state in his notice that the ineligible
voter can appear before the election officer
between thirty days to sixty days from the date of
notice to get the remedy.
(v) The election officer has to hear and dispose the
objections filed by the ineligible voters within sixty
days from the days of submission of objections
from such voters.
(vi) The final list of ineligible voters shall be
published on or before fifteen clear days prior to
the date of election.
17. Rule 13D(2), (3), (4) and (5) read as follows:
"13D(2) The Co-operative Election Authority shall,
on receipt of such reports from the Election Officer
of the district, containing the list of cooperative
societies where elections are due, publish the
calendar of events for the preparation of electoral
rolls and the conduct of elections of the boards of
the cooperative societies indicating the name and
address of each society.
13(D)(3) The Election Officer shall take steps for
publication of voters list in the following manner,
namely,-
(a) for publication of draft eligible electoral
list, a list of defaulters, a list of members
whose repayments will fall due, before the
election date clear fifty days;
(b) for calling objection, if any, calling
upon the defaulter members to repay the
amounts due to the Cooperative Societies on
or before thirty clear days prior to the date
of election;
(c) the scrutiny and verification of the
voters list after payment by defaulters etc.,
clear twenty days before the date of
election;
(d) for publication of final eligible voters list
on or before fifteen clear days prior to the
date of election.
13D(4) It shall be the duty of every society to
furnish correct information required by the Election
Officer to enable him to approve the electoral rolls,
as directed by the Co-operative Election Authority.
13D(5) The chief executive of every cooperative
society shall prepare(i) a draft list of the eligible
members or representatives and delegates with
right to vote,(ii) the list of members whose
repayments will fall due before the date fixed for
publication of final electoral roll, (iii) a list of
defaulters (iv) a list of other members or
representatives and delegates who are not eligible
to vote at a general election indicating the reasons
for ineligibility memberwise on the basis of entries
in the updated membership register specifying,-
(a) the name of the member or
representative, the admission number, the
name of the parent or husband and the
address of such member or representative in
the case of an individual member;
(b) the admission number, the name of the
society, the name of the delegate proposed
to represent the society in the case of a
member society,
and submit the said lists to the Election Officer
along with the related books, records and
documents and any other information as the
Election officer may require, at least sixty days
before the date of election."
18. It is forthcoming from an overview of the
aforementioned provisions that Section 39-AA(15)(a) of
the Act casts an obligation on the Board of every Co-
operative Society to inform the Co-operative Election
Authority about the expiry of its term of office at least six
months before the date of expiry of such term. Further,
Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules prescribes the steps to be
taken for publication of the voters list and specifically the
steps to be taken with regard to the finalizing the list of
eligible and ineligible voters. In that regard, it is relevant
to note that Rule 13-D(2-A)(i) to (iv) of the Rules casts
the obligation on the Chief Executive Officer of every
society and Rule 13-D(2-A)(v) and (vi) of the Rules casts
the obligation on the Election Officer.
19. It is further pertinent to note that unless the
steps as contemplated under Sub-Rules (i) to (iv) of Rule
13D(2-A) are taken, it is not possible for the Election
Authority to complete the steps as contemplated under
Sub-Rules (v) and (vi) of the said Rule 13D(2-A).
20. In the present case, the Chief Executive Officer
of Respondent No.5 - Society vide communication bearing
No. SJBECS:Mem/list/89/2022-23 dated 15.02.2023
intimated the third respondent that the term comes to an
end in the month of September 2023.
21. Although the intimation as required under
Section 39AA(15)(a) of the Act has been sent, there is
nothing forthcoming with regard to the compliances by
the society as contemplated under Rule 13D(2-A)(i) to
(iv) of the Rules, which were required to be done prior to
the intimation as contemplated under Section
39AA(15)(a) of the Act has been done.
22. It is relevant to note that under Section 28B(1)
of the Act, the Board is required to conduct the elections
before the expiry of the term and under Section 39-
AA(15)(c) the Board of the society shall provide all
necessary help, assistance and co-operation for the
smooth preparation of the electoral rolls and conduct of
the elections. Further, under Section 29G(4), the CEO of
the society,subject to the control, general supervision and
control of the Board is also a custodian of all the records
and is required to perform such other duties and exercise
powers under the Act and Rules. Hence, an obligation is
cast on the Board of the society to initiate the requisite
steps to ensure the smooth and timely conduct of the
elections.
23. Further, Rule 13-D(1) of the Rules stipulates
that the election officer shall, after due verification, send a
consolidated list of all co-operative societies in the district
where elections are due at least 120 days before the date
of expiry of the term of office of the Board to the Co-
operative Election Authority and Rule 13-D(2) of the
Rules stipulates that the Co-operative Election Authority
on receipt of such reports from the Election Authority
published the calendar of events for preparation of
electoral Rolls as directed by the Co-operative Election
Authority. The measures to be taken by the Chief
Executive of every Co-operative Society is stipulated in
sub Rule (5) of Rule 13-D of the Rules.
24. The appointment of the Returning Officer is
stipulated in Rule 13-E of the Rules. Rule 14 of the Rules
prescribes the notification of general elections which reads
as follows:
"14. Notification of General Election. (1)
The Election Officer shall with the approval of the
CEA notify in Form XI the intended election
referred to in Section 39AA.
(2) The Election Officer shall in such
notification specify.-
(i) the last date for making nominations
which shall be the seventh clear day before
the date of election.
(ii) the date for the scrutiny of nominations,
which shall be the day immediately following
the last date for making nominations.
(iii) the last date for the withdrawal of
candidatures, which shall be the fifth clear
day before the date of election.
(iv) the date on which the poll shall, if
necessary, be taken and the hours during
which the poll shall be taken; and
(v) the date before which the election shall
be completed.
(3) (a) On the issue of the notification under sub-
rule (1), the returning officer shall give a public
notice of the intended election in Form XII by
displaying it on the notice board in his office and in
the office of the cooperative society and at such
other places as he deems necessary, inviting
nominations for such election."
25. Having regard to the statutory stipulation as
noticed above, it is clear in the present case that the
Society has not taken the requisite steps as contemplated
under Rule 13D(2-A)(i) to (iv). It is also relevant to note
that when the intimation has been given by the Society to
the Co-operative Election Authority as contemplated
under Section 39AA(15)(a) of the Act, the said authority
has not ascertained with the Society with regard to the
compliance by it of the stipulations as required under Rule
13D(2-A)(i) to (iv) of the Rules.
26. It would be appropriate that in all cases, when
an intimation is received from the Society regarding
expiry of the term of the Board as contemplated under
Section 39AA (15)(a) of the Act, the Election Authority
calls upon the Society to ascertain as to whether the
needful has been done by it as contemplated under Rule
13D(2-A)(i) to (iv) of the Rules which would then, at the
earliest point of time enable the Election Authority to do
the needful in the matter so as to avoid a situation of the
present nature where action is being taken after the
calendar of events has been notified.
27. It is relevant to note that in the present case,
the District Election Officer appointed the Returning
Officer and voters list Verification Officer on 03.07.2023.
On 29.08.2023, the Verification Officer submits that the
verified voter list to the District Election Officer. On
30.08.2023, the District Election Officer approved the
final voters list. Thereafter, on 31.8.2023, the
Returning Officer issues the calendar of events.
Subsequently, vide communication bearing No.DRB-
3/Ele/Ri-Aa-47/2023-24, dated 08.09.2023 the District
Election Officer directs the Returning Officer to
postpone the elections on the ground that Rule 13-D(2-
A) has not been followed by preparing the voters list,
which is impugned in the present writ petition.
28. In the present case, the Returning Officer
has issued a communication dated 13.08.2023 which
specifically stipulates that it is issued in Form XII in
compliance of Rule 14(3) of the Rules. Hence, it is clear
that vide the said communication dated 31.08.2023,
the process of elections has already commenced.
29. It is also relevant to note the circumstances
under which Rule 14 is required to operate, inasmuch as
Rule14-A to Rule 14-Y contemplates various stages in the
election process commencing from the presentation of
nomination papers till the declaration of results.
Thereafter, Rule 14-Z is with regard to grant of Certificate
of Election to the elected candidates. The other provisions
of Rule 14 also are with regard to conduct of the
elections, which are solely in the realm of the Returning
Officer.
30. Hence, it is clear from the aforementioned that
by issuance of the Communication dated 31.8.2023 which
is admittedly under Form XII as contemplated under Rule
14(3-A) of the Rules, the process of election has already
commenced. Once the process of election is commenced,
the same is not required to be stopped in any manner. In
that regard, it is relevant to notice the following
judgments.
i) In the case of Kishansing Tomar v.
Municipal Corpn. Of the City of Ahmedabad1, a
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
considering a challenge made in respect of elections for
constituting the Municipal Corporation in the City of
Ahmedabad reiterating the proposition that the elections
are required to be held within the period stipulated in the
statute and there should not be any delay in the
constitution of any municipality has held as follows:
"20. ............ It is true that the Election
Commission shall take steps to prepare the
electoral rolls by following due process of law, but
that too, should be done timely and in no
circumstances, it shall be delayed so as to cause
gross violation of the mandatory provisions
contained in Article 243-U of the Constitution.
21. ....... Going by the provisions
contained in Article 243-U, it is clear that the
period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute
the municipality is mandatory in nature and has to
be followed in all respects. .........."
ii) In the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan
Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak
(2006) 8 SCC 352
Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra2 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was considering a case wherein, elections
to a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act which was postponed. Dealing
with the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:
"7. .......... A perusal of the Rules discloses that
the preparation of provisional list of voters, filing of
objection against the provisional list of voters,
consideration of the objection by the Collector and
finalising the list of voters, all occur in the Rules
which cover the entire process of the election. The
Rules framed for election of specified societies are
a complete code in itself providing for the entire
process of election beginning from the stage of
preparation of the provisional voters' list, decision
on the objection by the Collector, finalisation of
electoral rolls, holding of election and declaration of
result of the election. In view of the scheme of the
Act and the Rules, the preparation of voters' list
must be held to be part of the election process for
constituting the Managing Committee of a specified
society. ....
12. In view of our finding that preparation of the
electoral roll being an intermediate stage in the
process of election of the Managing Committee of a
specified society and the election process having
been set in motion, it is well settled that the High
Court should not stay the continuation of the
election process even though there may be some
alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing
the electoral roll. It is not disputed that the election
in question has already been held and the result
(2001) 8 SCC 509
thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court,
and once the result of the election is declared, it
would be open to the appellants to challenge the
election of the returned candidate, if aggrieved, by
means of an election petition before the Election
Tribunal."
(emphasis supplied)
iii) In the case of Gunjahalli Nagappa v. State
of Karnataka3 a Division Bench of this Court was
considering a challenge made pursuant to the State
Government canceling the calendar of events published by
the Returning Officer in respect of the elections to the
Gangavathi Town Municipal Council conducted under the
provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The
Government order was issued under Rule 75 of the
Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules,
1965, which contained the power of superintendence and
control. This Court considering the same, held as follows:
"9. .... The power of superintendence, direction
and control conferred on the State Govt. by Rule
75 cannot, in our opinion, be construed as
including the power to cancel a calendar of events
validly issued by the Returning Officer or to issue
direction to adjourn the date of poll. The impugned
(1975) 2 Kant LJ 77 - 1975 SCC OnLine Kar 19
order, to the extent it purports to cancel the
calendar of events issued by the Returning Officer
on 7-12-1974, has therefore, to be set aside."
iii)(a) The said order of the Division Bench was
challenged by the State Government before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of The State of Karnataka v. Gunjahalli Nagappa4 has
held as follows:
"5. .......... The power of superintendence,
direction and control conferred on the State Govt.
by Rule 75 cannot, in our opinion, be construed as
including the power to cancel a calendar of events
validly issued by the Returning Officer or to issue
direction to adjourn the date of poll. The impugned
order, to the extent it purports to cancel the
calendar of events issued by the Returning Officer
on 7-12-1974, has therefore, to be set aside. ..........
6. .... To test its validity it is necessary to
understand the nature of the defect from which,
according to the finding of the Returning Officer,
the divisional lists of voters suffered and see
whether that defect brings the case within the
scope and ambit of Rule 75.
10. ............ The only defect -- if at all it
can be called a defect -- which the Returning
Officer noticed on physical verification was that the
voters shown in the electoral roll as residing in the
territorial area of one division were in fact residing
in another. But, as already pointed out above, that
cannot be regarded as a defect in the division-wise
(1976) 1 SCC 204
lists of voters and it would not stamp them with the
vice of not being in conformity with the
requirements of the Act. The State Government
was, therefore, in any view of the matter, not
entitled to make the impugned order under Rule 75
on the ground that the divisional lists of voters
were defective and the election held on the basis of
such lists of voters would not be in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. What the State
Government did by making the impugned order
was to interfere with the election process which
was going on in accordance with law and that was
clearly not permissible on any interpretation of Rule
75."
(emphasis supplied)
iv) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Kumar & Ors., v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 5 was
dealing with a fact situation wherein, the elections that
were fixed and the calendar of events were issued by the
Election Officer under the provisions of the Act were
deferred apprehending that there was a law and order
situation. A learned Single Judge of this Court had
quashed the deferment and directed the elections to be
held from the stage where it was stopped. The Division
Bench upheld the said decision of the learned Single
Judge.
2008 SCC OnLine KAR 496
v) A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
B.D.Manjunath & ors., v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,6
dealing with the elections to be held under the provisions
of the Act, has held as follows:
"28. ........... Time and again, the Apex Court and
this Court have laid down a well settled principles of
law that "once the election process is commenced,
the question of postponement of election is not
permissible". In the instant case also, after taking
into consideration the status of the respective
parties, it shows beyond reasonable doubt that, in
majority of the cases, already election process is set
in motion, the voters list had published, nomination
papers has been filed and at that stage, the
respective Returning Officers, after taking into
consideration the clarification issued by the
Government, have issued endorsements postponing
the election and the same is not at all permissible,
in view of the settled position of Jaw, laid down by
the Supreme Court and this court. There is no
justification for the Government to invoke Section
39A(4) r/w 121 of the Co-operative Societies Act, to
postpone the election in respect of the Societies to
which calendar of events had already issued.
............"
vi) A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
The Agricultural Processing Industrial & Commercial
Co-op Society LTd., & Ors., v. The State of Karnataka
ILR 2005 KAR 927
& Ors., 7 dealing with an election conducted under the
provisions of the Act has held as follows:
"11. ............. when process of election has been
set into motion by the State Co-operative Election
Authority, said authority alone has got jurisdiction
to stop or stall the election that too, in the
contingencies that may arise as indicated under
Rule 14-H to 14-J. Contingencies indicated under
these rules would clearly disclose as to when there
can be postponement or adjournment of a poll or
whether fresh poll can be held including
countermanding of a election. Contingencies so
prescribed are clear and specific. If contingencies
prescribed thereunder are absent, authority of the
co-operative election authority to postpone election
would also be unavailable. ....
12. In a democratic process, when the process of
election of a society is set in to motion, it cannot be
interjected by the authorities to their whims and
fancies and on grounds alien to the statutory
power. As already observed herein supra, under
Rules 14-H to 14-J of the Rules, Election Authority
alone has power for postponement of election and
none else. As such, exercise of jurisdiction by third
respondent directing 7th respondent to postpone
the election is without authority of law. When
election to 9th respondent - society has been
commenced by issuance of calendar of events,
same has to be taken to its logical end. As such,
appropriate directions deserves to be issued in this
regard and same is issued herein below."
(emphasis supplied)
vii) A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
H.S.Raju & Ors., v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,8
WP Nos.13938-941/2019 c/w 10867/879/2019, order dated 15.10.2019
WP No.8502/2022 c/w 8477/2022, order dated 7.6.2022
relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami
(Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak
Sanstha2 has held as follows:
"12. It follows from this decision that the
adjudication of all questions must be as provided
under Section 70(2) of the Co-operative Societies
Act4.
70. Disputes which may be referred to
Registrar for decision.- (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the time being
in force, if any dispute touching the constitution,
management, or the business of a co-operative
society arises,--
(a) xxxxxxxxx
(2). For the purposes of sub-section (1),
the following shall be deemed to be disputes
touching the constitution, management or the
business of a co-operative society, namely:--
(a). XXXXXXXXXXX
(b). XXXXXXXXXXXXX
(c). any dispute arising in connection with
the election of a President, Vice- president,
Chairman, Vice-chairman, Secretary, Treasurer
or Member of Committee of the society.
However, in the present case the respondents admit that there
are deficiencies in finalization of Final Electoral List. The
petitioners are admittedly not issued with individual notice as
required under the provisions of Rule13-D (2-A) of the Co-
operative Societies Rules; the petitioners have now cast their
votes in the elections on 23.04.2022; the petitioners are not
given the opportunity to show cause against the allegations
that they have created documents. The respondents, despite
admitting deficiencies in finalisation of the Final Electoral List,
want to invoke the rule of alternative remedy. This Court is of
the considered view that, in the peculiarities of this case, the
writ petitions should be disposed of with directions to the
concerned respondent to announce results counting even the
votes cast by the petitioners and with liberty to all the
concerned to avail remedy under Section 70(2) of the Act if
aggrieved by the results. If such remedy is availed raising a
dispute, exclusion of votes of those petitioners who are guilty of
fraud can also be considered based on the material that will be
placed on record."
viii) In the case of Channaiah & Ors., v. State of
Karnataka9, a coordinate Bench of this Court considering
the elections held under the provisions of the Act, noticing
the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Gunjahalli Nagappa3 and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Karnataka4 and various
other judgments has held as follows:
"46. All the pronouncements of Courts lead to one
irresistable conclusion that when once the election
process has commenced it must continue in
accordance with the calender of events. If the
election process is interrupted by an interim order
of Court or by an Authority and ultimately if it is
found that such interruption was not called for then
the election process shall continue in accordance
with the calender of events originally announced
and shall take off from the time when the process
was interrupted. The third question is answered
accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
ILR 2000 KAR 2572
31. It is vehemently sought to be contended on
behalf of the official respondents as well as the impleading
applicants that even if the election process has
commenced, having regard to the fact the electoral rolls
have not been properly drawn up, the authorities are
justified in deferring the elections. It is further sought to
be contended that the bar contained under the
Representation of People Act, 1950, is not applicable to
the societies registered under the State enactments.
32. With regard to the contention of the petitioners
that the Election Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the
communication dated 8.9.2023 in directing the Returning
Officer to postpone the elections, it is contended by the
State that the power exercised by the Election Officer
being an administrative one and having regard to Section
21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the authority who
issued the notification i.e., the Electoral Officer was
empowered to defer the holding of the elections. It is
further contended that when the statute prescribes an act
to be done in a particular way, it has to be done in the
said manner and in no other manner. It is further
contended that this Court should not set aside an order
which appears to be illegal since the holding of elections
at present would not be in the best interest of the
democratic process in which the society was required to
function.
33. In support of the contention that the function
discharged while deferring the election is administrative in
nature, learned Additional Advocate General relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Indian National Congress (1) v. Institute of Social
Welfare & Ors.,10. Further reliance is placed on Section
21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree
Sidhbali Steels Ltd., v. State of U.P.11 to contend that
the power to rescind the notification is inherent in the
power to issue notification without any limitations or
conditions.
(2002) 5 SCC 685
(2011) 3 SCC 193
34. The said contention putforth on behalf of the
State and reliance placed on Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897, will not aid the case of the official
respondents in view of the fact that the calendar of events
has been issued by the Returning Officer in Form XII in
view of Rule 14(3-A) of the Rules, which is consequent to
the notification issued by the Election Officer in
accordance with Rule 14(1) of the Rules. Subsequently,
vide the order dated 8.9.2023 the Election Officer directs
the Returning Officer to postpone the calendar of events,
which is impermissible in law. As noticed hereinabove,
once calendar of events is issued by a Returning Officer,
the process of elections having begun, the powers
exercisable by the Returning Officer are as stipulated
under Rules 14A to 14Z of the Rules and there is no scope
for interference in the same by other authorities as has
been done in the present case.
35. It is also relevant to notice the contentions
putforth on behalf of the petitioners in response to the
reliance placed under Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897 wherein, it is contended that the power under
said Section 21 cannot be used to vary, modify or rescind
an election programme. Reliance in support of the said
contention is placed on the judgment of a coordinate
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of
Maghar Singh & anr., v. State of Punjab12 .
36. Reliance placed by the State on the judgment
of a coordinate Bench of this court in the case of
Nagaramgere Grama Panchayath, Challakere & ors.,
v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., 13 will not aid its
case since the said decision is rendered in the background
of the Covid 19 pandemic wherein, the term of the elected
body had ended and the elections under the Karnataka
Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act of 1993') were required to be
conducted and an Administrator was appointed to various
CWP No.5283/1984, order dated 16.1.1985
WP No.8451/2020, order dated 29.6.2020
panchayaths. The facts of the said case are wholly
inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
37. Reliance placed by the State on the judgment
of a coordinate Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case
of B.Mohanachandran Nair v. The State Co-Operative
Election Commission14 will also not aid its case in view
of the fact that the said judgment arose in a fact situation
wherein, elections to the Board of Directors of the Co-
operative Bank was being conducted and Electoral Officer
was appointed, consequent to which the voters list having
been published, date was fixed for filing of the
nominations. At that stage a writ petition was filed for
appointing an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the
further proceedings in the elections apprehending
interference by the State authorities. The Kerala High
Court dismissed the writ petition holding, inter alia, that it
was the duty of the Election Commission to take steps to
conduct a fair election.
2013 SCC OnLine Ker 24275
38. The contention putforth by the impleading
applicants and the judgments relied on by them with
regard to the contention that when a statute provides that
a thing to be done in a particular manner the same has to
be done in the said manner, will not aid its case since the
scope and effect of Rule 13D(2-A) of the Rules has been
considered along with the powers of the Electoral Officer
and the Returning Officer as stipulated under the Rules.
39. The judgment in the case of Mr.R.Karuppan,
Advocate v. Mr.P.K.Rajagopal, Secretary Advocates'
Associaiton, High Court15 rendered by a coordinate
Bench of the Madras High Court relied on by the
impleading applicants to contend that the elections
conducted under the Societies Registration Act and the
Rules framed thereunder are governed by the said Act
and Rules and elections governed under the
Representation of People Act, 1950, cannot be extended
to the same, will not aid its case since the judgments
2001 (3) CTC 486
rendered by this Court are specifically with regard to the
provisions of the Act and have been considered in this
order.
40. The reliance placed by the impleading
applicants on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of C.M.Nagaraju & ors., v. The
Karnataka State Election Commission & Ors.,16 will
not also aid its case since in the said case a finding was
recorded that in the matter of elections being conducted
under the Act of 1993 with respect to Chikkajala Grama
Panchayath was declared invalid by the State Election
Commission (SEC) wherein, it was noticed that the Village
Accountant got prepared and printed the entire electoral
roll different from the approved electoral roll and hence, a
finding was recorded that free and fair election was
vitiated. Hence, this Court did not interfere with the
power exercised by the State Election Commission in the
facts of the said case. The said judgment will not aid the
case of the impleading applicants as the fact situation is
WP No.14847/2020, order dated 15.3.2021
entirely different from the fact situation arising in the
present case.
41. The judgments in the cases of Chandra Singh
& ors., v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,17 and Bharatiya
Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel &
Anr.,18 are relied on by the impleading applicants to
contend that the Courts should not set aside an order,
which appears to be illegal or its effect is to revive other
illegal orders. The scope and effect of the orders passed
by the Electoral officer and the Returning Officer have
been considered having regard to the provisions of the Act
and Rules. Hence, the said judgments arising from
completely different fact situations will not aid the case of
the impleading applicants.
42. The contention putforth by the official
respondents as well as the impleading applicants is that a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kumar M.
State of Karnataka19, considering a similar fact situation
2003(6) SCC 545
2012 (9) SCC 310
WP No.20333/2023 & c/w matters, Order dated 10.10.2023.
did not grant the relief sought for by the petitioners and
hence, a similar view is required to be taken in the
present writ petitions also.
43. In response to the said submission, learned
Senior Counsels for the petitioners would draw a
distinction between the fact situation arising in the case of
Kumar M1 and contend that in the said case the calendar
of events in Form XII as per Rule 14(3)(a) had not been
issued and what was issued was a notification in Form XI
as per Rule 14(1) and hence, occasion did not arise for
consideration as to whether the Election Officer could
direct the Returning Officer to interfere with the election
process.
44. It is further submitted by the official
respondents that the order passed in the case of Kumar
M1 is a subject matter in WA No.1348/2023 and the said
writ appeal having been heard and judgment is awaited, it
is just and proper to wait for the decision in the said writ
appeal.
45. However, learned Senior Counsels appearing
for the petitioners contest the said submission and submit
that the fact situation in the present cases being entirely
different from the matter pending before the Division
Bench, the question of awaiting the decision in the writ
appeal does not arise.
46. The distinction drawn by the petitioners from
the case of Kumar M19 is required to be accepted in view
of the fact that in the said case the calendar of events in
Form XII in accordance with Rule 3(a) had not been
issued and what had been issued in the said case was in
Form XI in accordance with Rule 14(1) by the Election
Officer. Hence, awaiting the decision of the Division
Bench in WA No.1348/2023 also does not arise.
47. In view of the aforementioned, the process of
election having been commenced with the issuance of the
communication dated 31.8.2023 in Form No.XII in
compliance of Rule 14(3) of the Rules by the Returning
Officer, the same cannot be deferred/postponed by the
Returning Officer acting in compliance of the direction
issued by the Electoral officer vide communication dated
8.9.2023. Hence, the issuance of the said communication
dated 8.9.2023 is liable to be interfered with. In the
event any ineligible voter/s is aggrieved, as held in the
case of H.S.Raju8, it is open for him/to them to take
recourse to Section 70 of the Act.
48. The process of elections having been
commenced, it is just and proper that the said process be
completed in the manner stipulated under the
communication dated 31.8.2023 wherein, the calendar of
events have been issued and the same is required to be
continued from the stage where it was stopped. In view
of the fact that in the calendar of events, the nomination
papers were required to be filed between 1.9.2023 and
8.9.2023 and the order postponing the elections having
been passed on 8.9.2023, it is just and expedient that
another day be granted for filing of the nomination papers
as stipulated at Sl.No.1 of the calendar of events.
49. In view of the aforementioned, the following
order is passed:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The order bearing No. DRB-3/Chunavane/RI.A-
47/2023-24 dated 8.9.2023 issued by the third
respondent is quashed;
iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to the sixth
respondent -Returning Officer to continue with the
process of elections in terms of the calendar of
events that was published on 31.8.2023 from the
stage it was stopped and issue fresh calendar of
events indicating another day for filing of
nominations. The Returning Officer shall complete
rest of the stages in the election process shall be
in accordance with Sl.Nos.2 to 9 of the calendar of
events as per the communication dated 31.8.2023,
and complete the election process to the fifth
respondent - society in accordance with law;
iv) The calendar of events to be issued as ordered
herein by the Returning Officer within 5 days of
receipt of a copy of this order;
v) The Election Authority shall do the needful with
regard to the observations made at para No.26
hereinabove in respect of all future cases where
the elections are required to be scheduled;
vi) In view of the writ petition being allowed, all
interim applications stand disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nd/BS
