JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that though the Returning Officer has power to modify the election programme under Rule 56-K of the Rules in circumstances stated therein but the said modification has to be within maximum time provided under Rule 56-J (vii). The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the present case, the final list of contesting candidates was published on 8th July, 2000 and election was scheduled for 23rd July, 2000. According to him under Clause (vii) of Rule 56-J the Returning Officer has to fix the date of election not earlier than 10 days from the date of publication of final list of contesting candidates and not later than 15 days therefrom and since by modified programme, the election was fixed on 13-8-2000 which is beyond 15 days from the date of publication of final list of contesting candidates, the order of Returning Officer fixing the election on 13-8-2000 deserves to be set aside. 3. Rule 56-J of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules of 1961') provides for appointment of dates for various stages of election by the Returning Officer with prior approval of Registrar or District Election Officer, as the case may be. Before me there is no controversy about the nominations, publication of list of nominations, scrutiny of nominations, and, therefore, I am not dealing with this aspect. Clause (vii) of Rule 56-J provides about the time and place for poll which shall not be earlier than 10 days, but not later than 15 days from the date of publication of final list of contesting candidates. Rule 56-K provides for manner of publication of election programme under Rule 56-J. Proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 56-K provides that if due to unavoidable circumstances and in the public interest, the Returning Officer has to modify the election programme, the Returning Officer may, for the reason to be recorded in writing, modify the programme even if there is no sufficient time for obtaining prior approval of Registrar or District Election Officer, as the case may be. The power which has been given to Returning Officer for modification of election programme due to unavoidable circumstances and in the public interest, cannot be constrained and confined to the period given in Clause (vii) of Rule 56-J. The said power of modification of election programme is not restricted to the period provided in Rule 56-J (vii). The very purpose of the power given to the Returning Officer in proviso to sub-rule (4) to Rule 56-K for modification of election programme in the public interest and unavoidable circumstances may be frustrated and defeat its objective if the modification in election programme has to be within the period mentioned in Clause (vii) of Rule 56-J. In the present case, the final list of contesting candidates was published on 8-7-2000 and election was fixed for 23-7-2000 i.e. 15th day from the date of publication of final list of contesting candidates. The Returning Officer, couple of days before the election was scheduled, received the communication from the concerned Superintendent of Police to postpone election of the society on account of inability for providing Police Officers as there was instability of law and order in Sangli. The circumstances were indeed unavoidable and after recording reasons, the Returning Officer was compelled to modify the election programme in public interest since he could not have held elections within the time granted under Clause (vii) of Rule 56-J. Any modification in the election programme due to unavoidable reasons and in public interest in the facts and circumstances would have been beyond 15 days of publication of final list of contesting candidates because under the original programme the election was already fixed on 15th day of publication of such list and, therefore, the Returning Officer cannot be said to have committed any illegality in fixing the election for 13-8-2000. 4. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of law or defect warranting interference by this Court. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. 5. The parties may be provided ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court sheristedar on payment of usual copying charges. Writ petition dismissed. -----