( 1 ) IN these petitions, the petitioners have sought to quash the impugned Annexure-B, bearing No. CMV:37: CLM:2004 dated 20. 08. 2004 issued by the 1strespondent only to the extent as illegal or to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of postponement of election and extending the period in case of petitioners society also in terms of Annexure-B. ( 2 ) THE 1stpetitioner-society is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The 2ndpetitioner is the Director and the 3rdpetitioner is the member of the 1stpetitioner-society, having common interest filed there petitions jointly, claiming that, the 1stpetitioner-society is a registered Housing Society consisting of Government employees as its members. The election of office bearers of the said society was held on 30thmay 1999 and the term of office is up to March 2004. The said period was extended for six months, in view of the notification issued by the Government. Be that as it may, the 2ndrespondent has issued a Notification on 26. 7. 2004 proposing to hold election to all Co-operative Societies in the district on or before 30thseptember 2004, vide Annexure-A. In pursuance of the said Notification, the competent authority that, it will not be proper to hold election in view of severe draught prevailing in that area and also on the ground that the members of the 1stpetitioner-society have actively engaged in the draught relief work and many of members are not available in the headquarter; that apart some of the retired Government servants who are members of the 1stpetitioner-society are depending upon the agricultural income. When things stood thus, the 1strespondent has issued the impugned Notification on 20thaugust 2004, postponing the election and extending the period of office by another six months in exercise of power conferred under Sections 28a (4), 28a (5) 28b (2) and 39a (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, vide Annexure-B. ( 3 ) FURTHER, it is the case of the petitioners that, all the Co-operative Societies are classified as one class and all societies irrespective of their activity or business are governed by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The term of the office is also fixed common for all Societies under the said Act. The term of the office is also fixed common for all Societies under the said Act. The 1strespondent by its Notification dated 20thaugust 2004, has extended the tenure of the office only in respect of certain societies (Agriculture Oriented) by assigning the reason that, there is a draught situation. The draught situation prevailing in that area, will have the impact not only on the agriculturists and agricultural sector, but, also on all citizens residing in that area. Therefore, the classification made by the 1strespondent in postponing the election and extending the time is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of respondents in omitting the 1stpetitioner-society or denying the benefit of postponement of election and extending the tenure of the office cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In spite of petitioners giving a representation to the competent authority to extend the benefit as per Notification dated 20thaugust 2004 vide Annexure-B, to the 1stpetitioner-society also, the respondents have not considered the same, however, they have stated that, the said Notification is confined to agricultural sector only and refused to entertain the same. Therefore, the petitioners felt necessitated to approach this court, by way of filing these writ petitions. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the impugned Notification issued by the 1strespondent on 20thaugust 2004 vide Annexure-B is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents in omitting the 1stpetitioner-society or denying the benefit of postponement of election and extending the tenure of the office cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate his submission, he has relied on the definition of Co-operative Society, as envisaged under the Act and also taken me through Sections 39 (A) (4) of the Act, and submitted that, as per the definition of the Co-operative Societies Act, No-classification, as such, has been made and all the societies are treated in par with other societies. Further he placed reliance on Article 13 of the Constitution of India, and submitted that in so far they are inconsistent with the provision of this part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. Further he placed reliance on Article 13 of the Constitution of India, and submitted that in so far they are inconsistent with the provision of this part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. Further, he vehemently submitted that, once the draught condition is prevailing in the area, that has been substantially affected the members of the 1stpetitioner-society and they are also not in a position to recover the loan advanced to the members and the said benefit extended to a particular class of society is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned Notification issued by the 1strespondent is vitiated and the said benefit is to be extended to the 1stpetitioner-society, also. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, inter-alia, contended and substantiated the impugned Notification issued by the 1strespondent as the same has been issued in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 39 (A) (1) r/w 121 of the Act. Further he pointed out and substantiated that, at Preamble of the Notification itself, it is crystal clear that, as to how and under what circumstances the benefit has been extended to a particular class of society after taking into consideration the ground reality and the difficulties of the members of the societies of the agricultural sector. No error or illegality as such has been committed by the 1strespondent as such has been committed by the 1strespondent, while issuing the said Notification. Further, he has specifically submitted that, the petitioners-society has no locus-standi to assail the said Notification, so far as it relates to postponing the election and extending the time to a particular class of society. Nor the petitioners have made any good grounds to interfere with the Notification issued by the 1strespondent. ( 6 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondents and after careful evaluation of the entire materials available on record, with the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties and also after taking into consideration the contentions urged by both the counsel, the only question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is: whether the impugned Notification issued by the 1strespondent is sustainable in law? ( 7 ) AFTER careful perusal of the impugned Notification issued by the 1strespondent vide Annexure-B, I do not find any error of law, much less, any irregularity in the said Notification. Through the said Notification, the 1strespondent has postponed the election and extended the time to the benefit of the societies, which comes under agricultural sector, after taking into consideration the severe draught condition prevailing in that area, since more than three years on the ground that, in view of the draught condition prevailing in that area, the members of the said societies could not pay the loan availed by them and if they are defaulters, they are not eligible to participate in the election and they are disqualified as per the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Further, it is significant to note that, after careful perusal of Sub Section 4 of Section 39a r/w 121 of the Act, it is crystal clear that: the Government has got power to take decisions, if in case, where there is a scarcity, draught, flood, fire or any natural calamities or in rainy seasons, election can be postponed. The State Government notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or Rules. Bye-laws, by general or special order postpone the election of any society or class of society for a period not exceeding six months at a time and if in case not exceeding two years in aggregate. In view of the said proviso, the power exercised by the 1strespondent is in consonance with the mandatory provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality as such, has been committed by the 1strespondent, while issuing the impugned Notification, by postponing the election and extending the time only to the Societies, which comes under agricultural sector, after taking into consideration the draught situation and the ground reality prevailing in that area. ( 8 ) SO far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the decision taken by the Government in postponing the election to a particular class of society is discriminatory in nature and it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that as per the mandatory provisions of the Act, the 1strespondent cannot discriminate or classify the societies. The reasoning give by the 1strespondent for postponing the election to a particular class of society is that, there is a severe draught in that area and they cannot recover the loan amount from the members of the said societies and if they cannot recover the said amounts, they are found ineligible. The said reasoning given by the Government for postponing the election to a particular class of society is also applicable to the members of the 1stpetitioner-society, on the ground that more than 20 to 30% of the members of the 1stpetitioner-society are actively engaged in the draught relief works in that area and when this fact has been brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, they have not considered the same. There is no substance in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, nor the same can be accepted holding that there is a discrimination by the 1strespondent towards the 1stpetitioner-society. After careful perusal of the representation given by the petitioners-Society, vide Annexure-C, the request made by the petitioners is on two folds. Firstly, they have stated that, they have taken a decision to construct the Kalyana Mantap and they want to complete the same, if the period is extended and secondly, on the ground that the employees who are the members of the 1stpetitioner-society are actively participating in the draught relief work and hence they are not in a position to participate in the election. The said reasoning given by the petitioners-society in the representation cannot be accepted. The main aim and object of the 1stpetitioner-society is to form layout an distribute sites to the members of the society. The members of the 1stpetitioner-society are all Government employees and they cannot be treated as members of the agricultural society. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have pleaded before the authority or at least produced any documents before this court to show that they could not recover the loan amount from the members, for whom they have advanced, except making a bald statement. The said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Hence, there is no question of discrimination or unreasonableness by the 1strespondent against the 1stpetitioner-society. The said statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Hence, there is no question of discrimination or unreasonableness by the 1strespondent against the 1stpetitioner-society. ( 9 ) FURTHER, in view of the well settled law laid down by the Supreme Court and this court in hosts of judgments, regarding the discrimination also, I do not find any justification or good grounds to consider the request of these petitioners, at this stage, when already Notification has been issued by the 1strespondent for holding elections on or before 30thseptember 2004. It is worthwhile to extract the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2002 (2) S. C. C. 333), wherein, it is held thus:46. It is evident from the above that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. ( 10 ) IF the ratio of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court as stated supra is taken into consideration, I do not find any justification to entertain these writ petitions. Further, the Courts cannot be called upon to undertake the Government duties and functions and the Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. Social and economic belief of a judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the judgment of the legislative bodies (see IRA MUNN V. STATE OF ELLINOIS (1876 (94) US) (Supreme Court) 113) ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned Notification issued by the Government vide Annexure-A. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the dismissal of these writ petitions will not preclude the petitioners to redress their grievance before the authority, if it is permissible under law. --- *** --- .