JUDGMENT - P.S. PATANKAR, J. :---Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent heard forthwith, Respondent No. 5 was a Specified Co-operative Society governed by the Goa, Daman and Diu Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1978. It has 592 Societies as its members and 2664 individual members. However, on 30th May, 1987, Goa was declared as a State and Daman and Diu remained as Union Territories. Respondent No. 5 came to be governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. 2.The present Board of Directors came to power on 22nd July, 1992. The term of office is three years. The Central Registrar-Respondent No. 1- on 22nd June, 1995 directed that a general meeting for elections be held on 31st December, 1995 and by which date the process of amendment to bye-laws and framing of election regulations should be completed. Bye-laws came to be amended in a General Body Meeting on 5th December, 1995. However, respondents Nos. 6 to 9 filed Writ Petition No. 380 of 1995 in this Court on 14th December, 1995, inter alia, praying that directions be given to hold elections to the Board of Directors of respondent No. 5 on or before 30th December, 1995. This Court on 21st December, 1995 directed that the elections be held before 30th April, 1996. It was clarified that if the Returning Officer is to be appointed by respondent No. 1 and/or the respondent No. 2, then the said respondent shall take steps in that behalf well in advance of the said date of 30th April, 1996. Respondent No. 1 has delegated powers to respondent No. 2 under Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act except that under section 9. 3.The Bye-law No. 36 which was amended and sent for approval to the Central Registrar under section 9(1) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act which came to be approved with modifications by respondent No. 1. It provided that the number of directors are increased and elections are required to be held instead of 9 for 13 members. They were divided into various constituencies. It provided that the number of directors are increased and elections are required to be held instead of 9 for 13 members. They were divided into various constituencies. Unit Voters Constituency their UnitsNo. of DirectorsNo.to be elected 1Seva Societies from Goa State3 2Salary Earners Credit Societies from Goa State.2 3Urban Banks and Urban Credit Societies from Goa State1 4Consumers and Marketing Societies from Goa State.2 5Dairy Societies from Goa State.1 6Other types of Societies from Goa State1 7All types of Societies from Daman District1 8All types of Societies from Diu District.1 9All individual members1 (This was apart from five nominated Directors). It was provided that Voters in respective constituencies and units shall elect their own Directors. It was also stated that the Board shall be elected as per the Election procedure laid down in the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and Rules framed thereunder and the Goa, Daman and Diu Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1978 (hereafter referred to as 'the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules). In view of section 10, amendment to Bye-law came into force on the day it was registered i.e. 9th February, 1996. The petitioners called upon the respondent No. 2 to hold elections as per the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules by communication dated 29th March, 1996. In this petition also they are, inter alia, praying accordingly. 4.It is the case of the petitioners that as the bye-law has been amended validly and legally in view of sections 9 and 10 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, elections are required to be held according to the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules. They further contended that in any case the procedure as envisaged by paragraphs 2 to 7 of the Schedule to the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules is necessary to be followed. It is the contention that there are large number of members. If the procedure which is envisaged under paragraph 8 of the Schedule is followed then not only it would create practical difficulties but the election cannot be free and fair. It is pointed out that para 8(1) contemplates election to the Board by show of hands. The election is to be held in a general meeting of the Society convened for that purpose. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to have election when there are different constituencies. It is pointed out that para 8(1) contemplates election to the Board by show of hands. The election is to be held in a general meeting of the Society convened for that purpose. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to have election when there are different constituencies. It is pointed out Para 9 of the Schedule to the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules provides that if there is requisition from more than one-fifth of the total number of members then election can be conducted in the manner specified in paragraphs 2 to 7. In this case though there is no requisition as such, but the General Body itself had passed the resolution and pursuant thereto the bye-laws were amended which included that procedure contemplated by paragraphs 2 to 7 may be followed. 5.According to the learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 5 to 9, the amendment to bye-law No. 36 providing for holding elections under the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules is illegal and, in any case, no such election can be held both under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules and under the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules, as the procedures under the two Rules are different. 6.There is affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 - Collector of North Goa - by Shri Jose Philip, Collector of North Goa dated 22-4-96. He has pointed out that the Deputy Collector, Panaji, is normally appointed as the Returning Officer to hold elections. He has pointed out what time is required for holding elections according to the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules and he has stated that elections can be completed by about 31st August, 1996 in this case according to those Rules. 7.There is an affidavit filed by S.S. Byali, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Goa - respondent No. 2 herein. He has pointed out that under section 32 of the Multi-state Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 there shall be a Board of Directors for every Society consisting of such number of members as provided under the Bye-laws and subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 35 of the Act regulates election of members to the Board. He has pointed out that under section 32 of the Multi-state Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 there shall be a Board of Directors for every Society consisting of such number of members as provided under the Bye-laws and subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 35 of the Act regulates election of members to the Board. Rule 7 sub-rule (24) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules provides that Multi-State Co-operative Societies may make Bye-laws in respect of "the conduct of elections to the Board and other bodies of a Multi-State Co-operative Society including the number of members to be elected by different constituencies and appointment of Returning Officers." Paragraphs 2 to 7 of the Schedule provide that members to the Board of Directors of National Co-operative Societies specified in the Second Schedule to the Act and such other Multi-State Co-operative Societies as the Central Government may, by general or special order notify, shall be conducted by the Central Registrar as per paragraphs 2 to 7. In case of other Multi-State Co-operative Societies, it is according to paragraph 8 of the Schedule. Paragraph 8 provides that election shall be by show of hands. The election shall take place in general meeting of the society convened of which not less than 14 clear days notice is given to members. Sub-para (5) of para 8 provides that "the nomination of the candidates for election shall be made at the meeting. The Chairman of the meeting shall decide the objections, if any, which may be made at that time to any nomination after making such summary enquiry as he thinks necessary and announce the names of candidates as per valid nominations." Sub-para (7) of Para 8 says that "where secret ballot is demanded by the members of the general body, a formal resolution to this effect will be put to vote and adopted. The meeting shall adjourn for a brief period to enable the Chairman to make arrangements for the secret ballot." Paragraph 9 to the Schedule provides that one-fifth of the total members can ask for application of paragraphs 2 to 7 by calling a requisition meeting notwithstanding anything provided in sub-para (1) of para 8. According to the respondent No. 2, elections are required to be held according to the procedure prescribed and according to the amended bye-law. According to the respondent No. 2, elections are required to be held according to the procedure prescribed and according to the amended bye-law. He has pointed out that under the unamended Bye-law 36, all individual members were to elect only one Director and the remaining 8 were to be elected by different societies as specified. However, consequent of amendment to Bye-law 36, all 2664 individual members have to elect only one Director and the remaining 12 are to be elected by various types of Societies. He has also pointed out about the detailed procedure required to be followed under the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules. Section 9(2)(a) is as follows :--- "9(2)(a). Every proposal for such amendment shall be forwarded to the Central Registrar and if the Central Registrar is satisfied that the proposed amendment --- (a)is not contrary to the provisions of this Act or of the rules;" Therefore, there can be no amendment made or no such power can be exercised by amending the bye-law in such a manner which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 29(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act provides that ultimate authority shall be with the general body subject to the Act, Rules and bye-laws. Section 35(5) speaks about the Central Government making rules for regulating matters in respect of elections of members to the Board. Similarly, under section 109 power to make rules is given to the Central Government. Section 109(2)(xiv) provides for rules for the election of members to the Board under section 35. Rule 7(xviii) says that Multi-State Co-operative Societies may make bye-laws regarding the strength of the board. Rule 7(xxiv) provides for the conduct of elections to the board and other bodies of a Multi-State Co-operative Society including the number of members to be elected by different constituencies and appointment of Returning Officers. Rules provide for holding of elections as per the Schedule. No doubt Rule 8(1) empowers the Multi-State Co-operative Society to amend bye-laws, but that cannot be done to contravene the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is necessary that they should be consistent and the respondent No. 1 could not have approved application of the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules for elections. The learned Advocate for respondents 6 to 9 is right in that respect. It is necessary that they should be consistent and the respondent No. 1 could not have approved application of the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules for elections. The learned Advocate for respondents 6 to 9 is right in that respect. He is also right in submitting that it is absurd to apply procedures under both the rules. The procedures are different and cannot be applied in the case of Multi-State Co-operative Societies. The elections must be held according to the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules and the bye-laws which are consistent therewith. Though it is true that the procedure as prescribed in paragraphs 2 to 7 of the Schedule is not drastically different from the procedure contemplated under the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules, but those Specified Co-operative Societies Rules cannot be bodily applied in the present case. It can only be said that the intention of the general body in passing the resolution and seeking the amendment to the bye-laws was that the procedure as prescribed in paragraphs 2 to 7 of the Schedule to the Specified Co-operative Societies Rules should be made applicable in view of the different constituencies contemplated and the difficulties envisaged by applying the procedure under paragraph 8. Further, in order to hold free and fair elections, it is necessary that the said procedure should be adopted. Paragraph 9 contemplates this by calling for a requisitioned meeting atleast by one-fifth members. In the present case, in the general body meeting the resolution was passed and it was clearly intended that the procedure as contemplated by paras 2 to 7 of the Schedule be made applicable. Even this must be the intention of the Central Registrar and not application of Specified Co-operative Societies Rules bodily. Apart, to do this is prima facie illegal and there can be no approval of a bye-law which is not consistent with the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. However, taking into consideration the particular facts and circumstances of this case, he must have approved the application of procedure contemplated by paras 2 to 7 of the Schedule. We believe that holding of free and fair elections was uppermost in his mind. However, taking into consideration the particular facts and circumstances of this case, he must have approved the application of procedure contemplated by paras 2 to 7 of the Schedule. We believe that holding of free and fair elections was uppermost in his mind. 8.The respondent 1 to 5 have pointed out that if the procedure under paras 2 to 7 is required to be followed then atleast three months time will be required as the election programme is required to be declared, preparation of list of members/delegates, etc. is to be completed. 9.We pass the following order :--- We direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 that elections to the Board of Directors of respondent No. 5 be held as per paragraphs 2 to 7 of the Schedule to the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules, 1985. It is further directed that they should complete the holding of elections by the end of July, 1996. 10.Petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. *****