JUDGMENT K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The petitioner is an employee of the Thopramkudi Pepper Processing and Marketing Society Ltd., for short 'The Society', having its office within the jurisdiction of Udumbanchola Circle Cooperative Union. The election to this circle cooperative union, going by the Notification issued in that regard, was scheduled to be held on 21-10-1990. The names of the employees of this society who had been included in the provisional voters' list however were deleted while preparing the final voters' list on the ground that the society failed to renew its affiliation to the Circle Cooperative Union. 2. Having come to know of this, the petitioner has moved this O. P. for the following reliefs: - "a. a writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ quashing all proceedings for holding election to the Udumbanchola Circle Cooperative Union as proposed by Ext. P1; b. declare that all employees of the cooperative societies within the jurisdiction of the circle union are entitled to be voters and non affiliation or refusal to renew cannot be a ground for excluding them from the voters list: and c. be further pleased to issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed Just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case". 3. It is necessary at this stage to state the law governing the election to the Circle Cooperative Union and the right of the parties to exercise their franchise. A reference in this connection to S.88 of the Cooperative Societies Act and R.126 of the Cooperative Societies Rules is relevant. S.88 (1) provides that each Circle Cooperative Union shall have 13 members made up of in the following manner: nine members elected by the committees of the societies within the circle, one member elected by the Board of Directors of the District Cooperative Bank having jurisdiction over the circle, two members elected by the employees of cooperative societies within the circle and the senior most Inspector of Cooperative Societies in the circle. Of these 13 members, the seniormost Inspector of Cooperative Societies in the circle will be ex officio member. Sub-s.2 of S.88 says that a circle cooperative union is bound to elect one of the members, other than the ex officio member, to be its chairman and the ex officio member shall be its Secretary (vide sub-s.3 of S.88). Of these 13 members, the seniormost Inspector of Cooperative Societies in the circle will be ex officio member. Sub-s.2 of S.88 says that a circle cooperative union is bound to elect one of the members, other than the ex officio member, to be its chairman and the ex officio member shall be its Secretary (vide sub-s.3 of S.88). The employees of the cooperative societies within the circle therefore have the right to elect two members. 4. This right to elect, according to the counsel for the petitioner, includes the right to contest the election also. The non inclusion of the employees, including the petitioner, of the Thopramkudi Pepper Processing and Marketing Society, in the voters' list constitutes the cause of action to file this O. P., the petitioner submits. This court, it is further contended, stayed the election as is seen from the interim order originally passed. Later the said interim order was modified as the respondent gave an undertaking to the court that the employees of the society also will be included in the voters' list before the election is conducted. The election accordingly was conducted and the results were declared. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detection of the societies including 'the society' from the voters list, assuming that they have not renewed their affiliation to the State Cooperative Union, is bad in law. The members of the managing committees of the societies as also the employees of the societies are eligible voters and therefore the election conducted without giving them an opportunity to participate in the election is not sustainable in law. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader contended that these societies are not eligible to be included in the final voters list as they have not renewed their affiliation to the State Cooperative Union. A reference in this connection to the averments contained in Para.4 of the counter affidavit is profitable. 6. The question thus arising for consideration is: Could it be said that societies which are not affiliated to the State Cooperative Union or the societies which are affiliated but failed to renew the affiliation and the employees of such societies are not entitled to participate in the election to the Circle Cooperative union? 6. The question thus arising for consideration is: Could it be said that societies which are not affiliated to the State Cooperative Union or the societies which are affiliated but failed to renew the affiliation and the employees of such societies are not entitled to participate in the election to the Circle Cooperative union? The answer depends upon the construction of S.90 of the Act Sub-s.1 of S.90 provides that every cooperative society in the State shall get itself affiliated to the State Cooperative union. Sub-s.2 says that the affiliation under sub-s.1 shall be in force for a period of one year from the date of affiliation and shall be renewed on the expiry of that period. Sub-s.4 highlights the consequences of a society not getting affiliated to the State Cooperative Union. This sub-section says that if any cooperative society fails to affiliate to the State Cooperative Union as required by sub-s.1 or to renew such affiliation as required by sub-s.2, such society shall not be entitled to any of the privileges conferred on a cooperative society by or under the Act. In other words a society which is not affiliated to the union or failed to renew the affiliation already obtained, is not entitled to any of the privileges conferred on the society by or under the Act. The word "privilege" the learned Government Pleader submits, is not defined and therefore the meaning of that word as understood in common parlance shall be taken note of to understand the content of the section; and if that be so, the right to contest an election or to vote at an election can also be treated as a privilege conferred by or under the Act. The respondent therefore was justified in not allowing those societies which failed to renew the affiliation as also the employees of such societies to participate in the election. This argument proceeds only on the basis of the word 'privilege'. To find out the meaning of a word which is not defined, one should always refer to the context in which it is used. No provision in the statute and no word in a section shall be construed in vaccum. To put it briefly while trying to get meaning of a word, in a section, which is not defined, one should not concentrate too much on that word and pay too little attention to the other words. No provision in the statute and no word in a section shall be construed in vaccum. To put it briefly while trying to get meaning of a word, in a section, which is not defined, one should not concentrate too much on that word and pay too little attention to the other words. In other words to determine the meaning of the word one should refer to the other provisions, particularly those provisions with which that word is intrinsically connected. Applying this principle here it should be declared that the word 'privileges' (mark the words that precede this word namely "any of the" and also the words that follow it namely "conferred on a Cooperative Society) can refer only to the privileges enumerated and defined under S.35 to 41 of Chap.5. There is, therefore, no need to define or to give a specific meaning to the word at all. 7. The learned Government Pleader than argued that unless the expression 'privilege' is given the meaning suggested by him, the object to accomplish which, the State Cooperative Union is constituted, is likely to be lost. To find out the object in constituting the State Cooperative Union, the Government Pleader submits one has to refer to S.89, 90 and 91. S.89 defines the State Cooperative Union. S.91 enumerates the functions of the State Cooperative Union. S.90 says that all cooperative societies shall get affiliated to the State Cooperative Union. Sub-s.4 of S.90 deals with the consequences of non affiliation namely that, a society which fails to get affiliated or fails to renew the affiliation within the stipulated period, is not entitled to any of the privileges conferred on a cooperative society by or under the Act. Particular reference to S.91 prescribing the functions of the State Cooperative Union is necessary. The said functions are: "(a) to organise, assist and generally develop cooperative societies; (b) to carry on cooperative propaganda, and (c) to spread education on cooperative principles and practices. (2) The State Cooperative Union shall perform such other functions as may be prescribed". These Sections, the Government Pleader submits, read alongwith sub-s.4 of S.90 do reflect the intention of the legislature to treat the right to contest an election and also the right to vote at the election envisaged under S.80 are also privileges. Non inclusion of these rights as privileges in Chap.5 must be deemed to an omission. These Sections, the Government Pleader submits, read alongwith sub-s.4 of S.90 do reflect the intention of the legislature to treat the right to contest an election and also the right to vote at the election envisaged under S.80 are also privileges. Non inclusion of these rights as privileges in Chap.5 must be deemed to an omission. Such omissions can be filled by the court, if it comes to that, even by reading words or supplying fresh clauses into the Act by Court and thus allow the intention of the legislature to override the defective drafting of the Statute. That this is a well established canon of interpretation is beyond dispute. Equally will established is the principle that the court has no power to fill in any lacuna, gaps or omissions by stretching the language employed in the section although the court has the duty to try and harmonise the various provisions of the Act. If the legislature intended something opposite to what is stated in the Section or the legislature did intent that which is not expressed clearly or to put it differently if the legislature intended something very different, then as observed by the Privy Council in Crawford v. Spooner (4 M. I. A. 179), it is not for the court to invent something which they do not meet with in the words of the text; it is not for them so to supply a meaning. That means the court cannot legislate for causes omissus. In such cases it is for the legislature to fill up the lacuna, gap or omission by another Act. That there is no such omission as contended' for by the Government Pleader is very clear from the expression 'privileges (plural) used in sub-s.4 of S.90. The very fact that the privileges, a society is entitled to enjoy, have been enumerated and put in a separate chapter is more than sufficient to hold that the legislature never intended to treat the right to participate in an election or any other right as privilege. The word 'privileges' in the context in which it is used in sub-s.4 of S.90 therefore cannot be said to qualify any other right than those rights which are called privileges and enumerated in S.35 to 41 of Chap.5 of The Act. The word 'privileges' in the context in which it is used in sub-s.4 of S.90 therefore cannot be said to qualify any other right than those rights which are called privileges and enumerated in S.35 to 41 of Chap.5 of The Act. That the privileges enumerated and put in Chap.5 are intended to be exhaustive and not illustrative is very clear from the unique circumstance brought about by the legislature by using the plural of the word 'privilege' in sub-s.4 of S.90. Only if they are illustrative, we need think of giving the word a precise meaning. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that the inclusion of the right to participate in the election is a privilege therefore cannot be accepted. 8. The learned Government Pleader then argued that there is no need for this court to declare that the election was not conducted in accordance with law because there is no such prayer in the O. P. The petitioner has also no complaint that he did not get an opportunity to participate in the election. His only case is that he and others similarly situated are entitled to be included in the voters' list prepared in connection with the election. There is considerable force in this argument. Of the three reliefs prayed for in the O.P. relief (c) is only of a general nature and as such cannot be granted. So far as relief (a) is concerned, the same virtually stands granted by the interim order. Coming to relief (b): this also stands granted by the interim order because as per the directions of this court the voter's list was corrected by including all members of the managing committees of all societies and also the employees of such societies as members in the said list. The learned counsel for the petitioner nonetheless argued that the election in fact was conducted on the basis of Ext. P1 voters list and therefore the petitioner did not get an opportunity to contest the election as his name at the time had not been included in that list. This argument is attractive at the first blush but if one is to go deep into the circumstances of the case this cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. P1 voters list and therefore the petitioner did not get an opportunity to contest the election as his name at the time had not been included in that list. This argument is attractive at the first blush but if one is to go deep into the circumstances of the case this cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. There is nothing stated either in the body of the petition or in the relief portion that the petitioner had the intention to contest the election. His case all through was that the election notified without including the names of the petitioner as also persons similarly situated on the ground that they are employees of societies which failed to get affiliated to the State Cooperative Union cannot be said to be an election conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. That he got the chance to exercise his vote at the election is beyond dispute. If that be the position the further argument of the counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he lost his chance to contest the election, for the reason stated above, cannot be taken cognisance of. To put it briefly the reliefs prayed for in the O. P. in fact stand granted by the interim orders passed by this court. No further direction therefore requires to be issued. The O. P. is disposed of as above. No costs.