Judgment :- 1. The Administrator appointed under S.32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for briefness, the Act), to manage the affairs of the 1st respondent society in exercise of his powers under sub-section (4) and in compliance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of S.32 took steps to constitute a new committee for that society. It is common case that he communicated his decision to hold an election to the 2nd respondent, and that the latter appointed the 3rd respondent as the Returning Officer under R.35 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short, the Rules). The 3rd respondent issued Ext. P1 notice dated 26 71973 convening the general body meeting as on 19 81973 for poll. In compliance with R.35 (3) (b) of the Rules the list of.members qualified to vote was prepared and the same was published on 7-8-1973. However, the election did not take place on that day for the reason that the same was stayed by Munsiff's Court, Alleppey. The stay order was vacated only on 15101973. The 3rd respondent, Returning Officer thereafter issued another notice fixing the date of poll as on 11-11-1973 and stating that the election would be held on the basis of the voters' list published on 7 81973.On 11111973 also the election could not be conducted since, in the meanwhile, the District Court, Alleppey on 30101973 had restrained the 3rd respondent from receiving nomination papers and from proceeding with the election. This injunction was dissolved on 30 111973. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent had postponed the date of election to 16121973. Even on that date there was no election because of an order of stay issued by this Court in O. P. No. 4164 of 1973. This O. P. was finally disposed of only on 13 21974. This Court directed the Returning Officer to give the petitioner in that writ petition a week's time to file his nomination. The 3rd respondent thereafter issued Ext. P4 notice fixing the date of poll as on 7 41974, and notifying that the election would be conducted on the basis of the voters' list published on 7 81973. 2. Petitioner society who, on 23101973, as is evident from Ext. P2 letter, had been admitted as a constituent-member of the 1st respondent society but whose Ext. P4 notice fixing the date of poll as on 7 41974, and notifying that the election would be conducted on the basis of the voters' list published on 7 81973. 2. Petitioner society who, on 23101973, as is evident from Ext. P2 letter, had been admitted as a constituent-member of the 1st respondent society but whose Ext. P3 request dated 10121973 to include its name also in the voters' list was not acceded to by the 3rd respondent, has come up before me praying for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P4 notice and all further steps taken pursuant thereto, and for a mandamus directing the respondents to hold the election in compliance with the provisions of R.35 of the Rules. Though notice was ordered on the present O. P. on 4-4-1974, the poll fixed on 7-4-1974 was not stayed by this Court when it admitted the same. The newly elected members have been impleaded as party respondents as per orders on C. M. P. Nos 5471 and 6272 of 1974. By my order on the application for stay, C. M. P. 5160 of 1974 though 1 did not stay the election,1 had directed that the Board of Directors elected shall not assume charge and that the Administrator shall not hand over charge to the newly elected Board. Therefore, the Administrator is still continuing, and the newly elected Board has not taken over the management of the affairs of the 1st respondent society. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner society urged mainly two points viz., that the 3rd respondent, the Returning Officer is not competent to fix the date, time and place for the conduct of the election, and secondly, that, in any event, the mandatory provision in R.35 (3) (b) of the Rules which requires the preparation of the list of members qualified to vote as on 30 days prior to the date fixed for poll, has not been complied with in the instant case, in that the poll was fixed for, and was conducted on, 7 41974 on the basis of a list of qualified voters published on 7-8-1973. I am of the view that the learned Counsel for petitioner is well-founded in raising these points. 4. I had occasion to consider the 1st point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in O. P. No. 7 of 1974. I am of the view that the learned Counsel for petitioner is well-founded in raising these points. 4. I had occasion to consider the 1st point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in O. P. No. 7 of 1974. There I held as follows: "As pointed out by Mr. Chandrasekhara Menon, the postponement or stoppage of the election, irrespective of whether -it was as per Ext.P2 proceedings of the 2nd respondent or by some proceedings of the 3rd respondent, was not in exercise of powers under R.35(3)(e)(v) or R.35(3)(p). R.35(3)(e)(i) to (v) prescribe the procedure for scrutiny of and acceptance or rejection of the nomination papers, and R.35(3) (p) enables the Returning Officer to stop polling. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no case that there is any other provision enabling the Returning Officer to postpone or stop the election proceedings. The position therefore is that as a matter of fact no election was conducted on 28121973, be it for justifiable reasons as contended on behalf of the respondents, or unjustly and illegally as argued on behalf of the petitioner. No provision in the Act or the Rules was brought to my notice under which an election which did not take place on the date fixed for the same, could be continued from the stage it was stopped. R.35(1) indicates otherwise, for under that sub-rule the date, time and place for the conduct of the election has to be fixed by a resolution of the existing Committee, at a meeting held at least 60 days in advance of the expiration of its term. Under the Act or the Rules, no power is conferred on the Returning Officer to fix the date, time and place of election. The result is that if for any reason an election is not conducted on the date fixed, sub-rule (1) of R.35 is attracted, and all the steps envisaged by the several provisions in that Rule have to be taken". The position is the same so far as this case is concerned, but for the fact that the management of the affairs of the 1st respondent society is vested in an administrator, and not in a committee. The position is the same so far as this case is concerned, but for the fact that the management of the affairs of the 1st respondent society is vested in an administrator, and not in a committee. But then both under S.32(4) as well as under sub-s. (2) of S.33 the administrator has power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee; and under S.32(5) and under sub-s. (3) of S.33 it is his duty to arrange for the constitution of a new committee. In this case, R.35(1) has to be read along with the abovementioned provisions of the Act, and so read, the only authority competent to fix the date, time and place of election is the administrator. Admittedly, the date of poll (7-4-1974) was not fixed by the administrator, but by the 3rd respondent, the Returning Officer as per Ext. P4 notification. Ext. P4 notification as well as the election held in pursuance thereof, are therefore, invalid. 5. Mr. Velayudhan Nair appearing on behalf of additional respondents 6 to 9, referred me to R.35 (2) which empowers the Returning Officer to take necessary steps for the conduct of the election; and argued that, the Returning Officer is competent to fix the date, time and place for the 'conduct of the election', once the election could not be conducted on the date fixed by the committee or the administrator. I am afraid that in view of sub-rule (1) of R.35 which obliges the committee or the administrator to fix the date, time and place for 'the conduct of election', the phrase 'steps for the conduct of election' will not include within its ambit fixing of date, time and place. Further, the provisions in R.35 (3) (e) (v) and R.35 (3) (p) under which the Returning Officer can adjourn the scrutiny of nomination papers and 'stop' the polling respectively, indicate that the Returning Officer has no power to postpone the polling and fix another date for that purpose for any reason whatsoever. In my view, the words 'steps for the conduct of election' in R.35 (2) mean only such steps the Returning Officer has to take under and in accordance with the provisions of R.35 as for example sending intimations under R.35 (3) (a) etc. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner society has not raised the 1st point discussed above. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner society has not raised the 1st point discussed above. One of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner society is for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to hold the election in strict compliance with R.35. And the petitioner has also sought for quashing Ext. P4 notification as violative of Statutory Rules; further, ground A also raises the point. I do not think that there is any force in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. 7. This takes me to the 2nd point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-society, relying on R.35 (3) (b). There can be no doubt that under that provision it is the committee or the administrator who has to prepare the voters' list and that such list should be prepared with reference to a date 30 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. It is the case of the petitioner-society that as on 30 days prior to 7 41974 there were several other members qualified to vote but whose names are not found in Ext. P5 list, and also that as on such date, several members whose names are found in Ext. P5 list had become disqualified. The contention is well-founded. The provision for publishing the list by the Returning Officer not less than 15 days prior to the date fixed for polling inviting objections, if any, to be filed within 3 days of publication of list clearly shows that Rule35 (3) (b) is mandatory. That this is so is all the more clear from the fact that objections have to be considered by the Returning Officer and that he is bound to publish a final list of eligible voters not less than 10 days prior to the date of poll. I am therefore, definitely of the view that the election held on 7-4-1974 without compliance to R.35 (3) (b) is not in accordance with the provisions of R.35, and that it is for that reason illegal. 8. The administrator has in his counter-affidavit admitted that new members were admitted subsequent to the 'finalisation of the voters list' and that some of them had sent up delegates. The stand taken up by the Administrator is that none of them were entitled to vote since the 'list had already been finalised'. 8. The administrator has in his counter-affidavit admitted that new members were admitted subsequent to the 'finalisation of the voters list' and that some of them had sent up delegates. The stand taken up by the Administrator is that none of them were entitled to vote since the 'list had already been finalised'. In my opinion, the very object of R.35 (3) (b) is to safeguard against such situations, and to make the autonomy of co-operative societies real and substantial by enabling every member who, as on 30 days prior to the date fixed for election, is qualified to vote to participate in the election of its committee which is to manage its affairs for a term. There is no case for any of the respondents that petitioner-society or any of the newly admitted societies was, but for 'the finalisation of the list' on 7-8-1973, disqualified to vote. 9. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the Statute provides for an alternate relief in that any dispute arising in connection with the election can be referred to the Registrar for decision under S.69 of the Act. The question raised in this writ petition is fundamental and is about the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent, the Returning Officer to fix a date for poll and to conduct an election in violation of R.35 (3) (b). Petitioner's case is that there is no valid election at all for the reason that the administrator has not under R.35 (1) fixed the date, time and place for the conduct of the election, and that no voters' list has been prepared by him in accordance with R.35 (3) (b). Such being the case, I see no reason to decline to exercise my jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution on the ground that the petitioner can have resort to S.69 of the Act, and raise an election dispute, which in my view, is not an adequate and efficacious remedy on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. 10. Petitioner-society is entitled to both the reliefs prayed for. I quash Ext. P4 notice and all steps including the election held on 7-4-1974 pursuant thereto. 10. Petitioner-society is entitled to both the reliefs prayed for. I quash Ext. P4 notice and all steps including the election held on 7-4-1974 pursuant thereto. I also direct respondents 1 to 5 to arrange for the holding of, and to hold the election to the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent-society in strict compliance with the provisions of R.35 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. 11. The O. P. is allowed to the above extent. However, I make no order as to costs. Allowed.