JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The issue for decision is as to whether the Returning Officer, appointed to conduct election in co-operative society, is within authority to re-schedule the date for publishing the final list of voters. 2. In terms of Rule 35 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter, the Rules, for short, the committee of the first respondent co-operative society resolved to conduct elections. Following that, the Registrar appointed a Returning Officer, who, in turn, issued Ext.P1 notification, among other things, fixing 21.7.2007 as the date of publication of the final list of voters. This writ petition is filed challenging the legality of Ext.P4, by which, the Returning Officer adjourned the publication of the final list of voters to 24.7.2007. 3. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the Returning Officer has no authority whatsoever to usurp the time schedule fixed in Ext.P1 notification and that therefore, the re-scheduling of the date of publication of the final list of voters is without authority. In the same breath, it is also pleaded in the writ petition that in spite of the adjournment, many of the objections to the draft list of voters were not considered. 4. Rule 35 (3)(b) provides that the Returning Officer shall, not less than 15 days prior to the day fixed for election, publish the draft voters list, i.e., the list prepared by the committee in office, inviting objections, to be submitted within three days of publication of the draft list. The Returning Officer is obliged by that rule to publish the final list of eligible voters, not less than 10 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. The date fixed for poll as per Ext.P1 is 11.8.2007. Therefore, the statutory obligation of the Returning Officer in terms of Rule 35 (3) (b) as regards the publication of the final list of voters is to publish that list before the expiry of 10 days from 11.8.2007. The date fixed for publishing the final list of voters as per Ext.P4 is 24.7.2007, which is much before the date fixed for poll. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 35 (3) (b) in that regard. 5. The date fixed for publishing the final list of voters as per Ext.P4 is 24.7.2007, which is much before the date fixed for poll. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 35 (3) (b) in that regard. 5. The provision in rule 35 (3)(a) is that the Returning Officer shall give intimation of the details of the election to all the members included in the final list of voters, in the manner prescribed therein. This means only that the Returning Officer is duty bound to notify the details of election to all members included in the final list of voters. Since the provision in Rule 35 (3)(a) is that the details of election shall be given to all members included in the final list of voters, the details that are required to be given in terms of Rule 35 (3)(a) are only details regarding matters and events after the finalization of the voters list. If the information to a person included in the final list of voters should also include the proposed date for publication of the final list of voters, it would be a situation where the cart would run ahead of the horse. The identity of the persons to whom such information has to be given would be certain only by the publication of the final list of voters. Therefore, it would be meaningless to assume that the date of publication of the list of voters is also a detail regarding the election, about which, specific and unalterable information has to be given in terms of Rule 35 (3) (a). There is no legal impediment for the Returning Officer to publish the final list of voters at any time, after the consideration of objections, if any, to the draft list and it is within the authority of the Returning Officer to adjourn the date of publication of the final list of eligible voters to any date later than the one stated in the notification declaring the schedule of dates in connection with the election, but such publication shall be before 10 clear days of the date fixed for poll. 6. Incidentally, I may also notice that there are certain circulars and clarifying departmental directions, including that issued on 21.8.1991 by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, with No.CP (1) 30056/91, wherein, after noticing a judgment of this Court, certain directions have been issued. 6. Incidentally, I may also notice that there are certain circulars and clarifying departmental directions, including that issued on 21.8.1991 by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, with No.CP (1) 30056/91, wherein, after noticing a judgment of this Court, certain directions have been issued. Firstly, none of those directions really runs against what is stated above and even if a larger time frame is to be obtained, the thrust, even in the circular noticed above, is that, there should be sufficient time to place objections to the draft voters list, thereby meaning that the primary intention is to ensure that the final list of voters is appropriately arrived at. That essentially supplies further jurisprudential wisdom to support the view that the publishing of the final list could be even later than the date shown in a notification like Ext.P1, provided, it does not infract the provision in Rule 35 (3) (b), which enjoins that the final list has to be published 10 days before the date of poll. 7. In the case in hand, learned Government Pleader points out that earlier round of litigations required consideration of further objections to the draft voters list and the Returning Officer, obviously, needed more time. I may, at once, notice that the petitioners do not have a case that they were not given the information regarding the election. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no error or legal infirmity in the publication of the final list of eligible voters on a date later than the date notified for such purpose in Ext.P1. Ext.P4 issued in this regard is, therefore, with proper authority and challenge to it, therefore fails. 9. Certain grounds regarding inclusion of ineligible members in the final list and exclusion of eligible members there from have also been raised. Those are not issues that could gain attention of the writ court, particularly when those matters would fall within the realm of election disputes. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.