JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. (Oral) The respondents have filed Personal Presence Exemption Application separately in all the writ petitions. The applications are accompanied by the affidavits of Shri V.N. Mishra, Assistant Cane Commissioner, District Udham Singh Nagar and he is present before this Court. After considering the Exemption Applications accompanied by separate affidavit, all the Exemption Applications are allowed. All Exemption Applications are hereby disposed of accordingly. 2. All the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed for seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hold elections of all the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis of the State : a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to appoint Administrator in please of the present Committee of Management of various Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis in the State and further direct the respondents not to interfere in the working of the present Committee of Management of all Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis of the State till constitution of new Committee of Management of respective Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis of the State; any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances the case; and award the cost of the petitions to the petitioners. 3. At the time of last election, the term of Committee of Management as prescribed under the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as “Principle Act”) was 5 years and thereafter the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred as “Amending Act, 2007”) was enacted by which the term of Committee of Management was reduced from 5 years to 2 years and it also provided for appointment of the Committee of Management is not held before expiry of term of Committee of Management of the Cooperative Society. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Principal Act, 2003 further imposes a statutory duty on the Registrar, Cane Cooperative Societies to complete the elections of the Committee of Management of the Cooperative Societies at least two months prior to the expiry of their terms so that newly constituted Committee of Management may replace the old Committees of Management after expiry of their terms. When the Cane Commissioner did not fix any date for election of all the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis of the State, whose terms had expired by virtue of the Amending Act, 2007, the petitioners passed a resolution requesting the Cane Commissioner to hold elections of the Committee of Management of various Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management. The petitioners sent the proposed resolution to the Cane Commissioner and when the Cane Commissioner failed to hold elections of the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samitis, hence all these petitions have been filed before this Court. 4. The Cane Commissioner (respondent no. 2) has filed a Supplementary Affidavit dated 26.07.2008 in which he has filed a schedule of the proposed elections after consultation with the concerned officers of Cane Department. According to proposed programmes which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the Affidavit, the publication with respect to the determination of election areas would be done by 05.09.2008; the prescribed authority would finally publish the determination of election areas by 19.9.2008; and the Cane Commissioner would issue the instructions to the District Magistrates by 30th September, 2008 for holding the elections. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it has been stated in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit dated 26.07.2008 and affirmed on 25th July 2008 that the Management Committee has to re-determine the areas of election because during the period of earlier election and the current election some members may be reduced and enhanced. At least 10 members in the revenue village should be registered to elect the delegates of the society and in case there are less than 10 members in a village the same should be attached with another Cane Cooperative Society. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Administrator had been appointed in place of the Management Committees. The administrators appointed in place of the elected Management Committee cannot enroll new members and the Administrator had to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls. The administrator cannot alter the composition of the society. Such powers could only be exercised by an elected committee rather than the administrator or the committee appointed by the Registrar. The administrators appointed in place of the elected Management Committee cannot enroll new members and the Administrator had to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls. The administrator cannot alter the composition of the society. Such powers could only be exercised by an elected committee rather than the administrator or the committee appointed by the Registrar. Learned Chief Standing Counsel refuted the contention and contended that the Administrators are not going to admit the new members in the Cooperative Societies, but at the time of every election the areas of society has to be re-determined for the election purposes and at least 10 members in the revenue village should be registered to elect the delegates of the society and in case of less than 10 members in a village the same village has to be attached with another village to make the strength of the members to 10 or more than 10. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. The provisions of the Principal Act, 2003 and the Amending Act, 2007 did not provide any such condition in which it has been laid down that at least 10 members in revenue village must be registered to elect the delegates of the society. It is also not provided that if there is less than 10 members in a village the same should be attached with another village to make the strength of the village upto 10 members or more. The Chief Standing Counsel could not show us any provision under the Act or the rules in support of his contention. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala vs. T.A. Kuttappan & others 2000 (6) SCC 127 has held that the Administrator can exercise powers and functions only as may be required in the interests of the Cooperative Society. In that context, he must conduct elections as enjoined under law, that is, he is to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls and by necessary implication. A cooperative society is expected to function in a democratic manner through an elected committee of management and that committee of management is empowered to enroll new members. In that context, he must conduct elections as enjoined under law, that is, he is to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls and by necessary implication. A cooperative society is expected to function in a democratic manner through an elected committee of management and that committee of management is empowered to enroll new members. Enrolment of new members would invalve alteration of the composition of the society itself and such a power should be exercised by an elected committee rather than by an administrator or a committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of Management is under supersession. Thus, it is apparent that the administrator has no right to get the areas of the society or the village to re-determine for the purpose of election. Therefore, we are of the view that the administrator appointed by the Registrar cannot enroll new members for the election or he cannot change the composition of the society. He cannot make delimitation of the election areas by adjusting the revenue villages from one society to another society. 7. The aforesaid election programme which has been submitted by the Cane Commissioner is seem to be quite appropriate and reasonable and we approve the said proposal to hold the election. We further direct that the District Magistrates of the State would hold the elections very very expeditiously immediately after receiving the instructions from the Cane Commissioner. 8. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.