L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by four members of the Katravulapalli Fishermen cooperative Society Limited, the 3rd respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as the Society ), challenging the proceedings of the District Collector and district Election Authority, dated 21-8-2003, the 1st respondent, appointing the election Officer, the 2nd respondent, to conduct the election to the Managing committee of the said Society. Consequential Election Notification dated 20-9-2003 issued by the 2nd respondent is also challenged. ( 2 ) THE petitioners contend that the Society is not receiving any aid from the State and in view of Sub-Section 2 (b) of Section 31 of the A. P. Cooperative Societies act (for short the Act ), it is not competent for respondents 1 and 2 to conduct elections for the Managing Committee of the Society. It is their further contention that the 1st respondent cannot act as an Election Authority for the Society and it is only the Registrar of Cooperative Societies that is competent to take steps to hold elections, even where a requisition is made by the Managing Committee of the Society to hold elections. The petitioner also objected to the proposed secret ballot and submit that the election ought to have been held by raising of hands. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, it is stated that the term of the Managing Committee expired by 30-5-2003. It is stated that the President of the Society had requested the 1st respondent to hold the elections. The respondents contend that the 1st respondent is competent to act as Election authority and to appoint Election Officer in view of specific provisions of Rule 22 (2) of the A. P. Cooperative Society Rules (for short the Rules ). The respondents also state that apart from the President, as many as 245 members of the Society have submitted representation to the 1st respondent on 9-9-2003 requesting him to undertake to hold elections. In the said representation, a further request is said to have been made to the effect that election be held through secret ballot so as to avoid quarrels and friction during the course of elections. ( 4 ) ONE of the Members got himself impleaded as respondent No. 5 to the writ petition. He supported the contentions raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. ( 4 ) ONE of the Members got himself impleaded as respondent No. 5 to the writ petition. He supported the contentions raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. He has stated that pursuant to the election notification, nominations were filed. The 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent are said to have filed nominations for the office of the President. Referring to the judgments of the supreme Court, he contends that the election process, once initiated, cannot be stalled. ( 5 ) SRI G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in view of the fact that the Society is not receiving any Government aid, and having regard to the provisions of Section 31 (2) of the Act, it was for the Society itself to hold election and not for respondents 1 and 2. He contends that the same constitutes interference with the freedom of the Society to hold election. The 2nd contention advanced by the learned counsel is that even assuming that there existed the circumstances for holding of the election to the society by the authorities under the Act, the 1st respondent is not competent to appoint an election Officer. According to him, it is only the Registrar of the Cooperative societies, who can appoint the Election Officer. The 3rd contention of the learned counsel is that under the relevant Rules, the Election for the kind of the Society to which the 3rd respondent belongs, shall be by way of show of hands and not by secret ballots. On the basis of this submission, he states that the election notice dated 22-8-2003 is vitiated. ( 6 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for Fisheries and Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent, submit that the President of the Society and a vast majority of the members have requested for holding of elections through the department and that the same is permissible under proviso to Clause (c) of sub-Section 2 to Section 31. Dealing with the contention of the petitioners as to the competence of the 1st respondent to hold election, they rely upon Rule 22 (2) of the Rules and submit that the 1st respondent is the Election Authority and he is competent to appoint Election Officer. Dealing with the contention of the petitioners as to the competence of the 1st respondent to hold election, they rely upon Rule 22 (2) of the Rules and submit that the 1st respondent is the Election Authority and he is competent to appoint Election Officer. So far as the mode of election is concerned, they contend that it is at the request of the members that the method of secret ballot was chosen. ( 7 ) THE term of the Committee of the Society expired on 30-5-2003. There is nothing on record to disclose that the members of the Managing committee were appointed as Persons-in-Charge for the same. The election for the Managing Committee of the Society became due with the expiry of the term of the previous Committee. As regards manner of conducting election to elect the managing Committee of the Society, the A. P. State Legislature has effected amendments to the Act through Act 22 of 2001. One of the salient features of the amendment is that the Registrar of the Societies is endowed with the duty under Section 31 (2) (b) to hold elections to the Managing Committees of such societies, as have received the State aid. These are the Societies specified under Section 43 of the Act. The procedure for electing the Managing committees of other Societies is stipulated in Section 31 (2) (c) of the Act. According to this, it is the responsibility of the incumbent Committee to hold elections to the Office Bearers of the Committee before the expiry of the term. A proviso is added to this clause, which enables the Registrar to hold the elections to such class of societies, on the request being made by the Society. It is not in dispute that the Society did not receive any aid from the State. Therefore, the basic duty to hold elections was of the Committee, which was in office till 30-5-2003. For reasons best known to it, the Committee did not hold the elections. It was obviously to meet such contingency, that a proviso is added, wherein the Registrar is conferred with the power to hold elections, if a request is made. The respondents have categorically stated that the President of the Society and as many as 245 members of the Society have requested the 1st respondent to hold the elections by appointing an Election Officer. The respondents have categorically stated that the President of the Society and as many as 245 members of the Society have requested the 1st respondent to hold the elections by appointing an Election Officer. It is true that the Committee did not make the request. However, the Committee does not exist as of now. In such a case, the matter cannot be left in vacuum. If strict interpretation as insisted upon by the learned counsel is to be placed on the provisions, it emerges that the previous Committee neither conducted the elections nor made a request to the Registrar to hold elections and, in that view of the matter, there cannot be any election to the Society under any circumstances. This can never be said to be the intention of the Legislature. Therefore, no exception can be taken for the action initiated by respondents 1 and 2 to hold the elections. ( 8 ) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 1st respondent cannot act as an Election Authority. According to him, it is only the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies that is competent to act as Election authority and to appoint an Election Officer. This contention also deserves to be rejected in view of the specific provision contained in Rule 22 (2) of the rules. According to that provision and the table appended thereto, the registrar is the Election Authority for the societies, which are mentioned under section 31 (3) (a ). These Societies are District Cooperative Central Bank, district Marketing Society, etc. He is also the Election Authority for any society if specific by the Government. For all other classes of Societies, the district Collector is the Election Authority. Therefore, the 1st respondent is competent to act as Election Authority and to appoint the 2nd respondent as election Officer. ( 9 ) NOW remains the 3rd contention as to the mode of election. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon Rule 22-B of the Rules in support of his contention that the mode of election to the Society ought to have been by show of hands. Rule 22-B (a) provides for election through show of hands, to elect the members of weaker section societies, whose membership is small. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon Rule 22-B of the Rules in support of his contention that the mode of election to the Society ought to have been by show of hands. Rule 22-B (a) provides for election through show of hands, to elect the members of weaker section societies, whose membership is small. The same rule contains a provision to the effect that if there is a request from the society to conduct secret ballot even in respect of the kinds of Societies referred to above; the mode of secret ballot is to be adopted. In the present case, it needs to be seen though that it is a Society belonging to the weaker section, the membership is not small. It runs into several hundreds. Further, there was a demand by the Society, to hold election through secret ballot. Under these circumstances, holding the elections through ballot cannot be said to be illegal. ( 10 ) VIEWED from any angle, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.