Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 134 (GUJ)

Kanubha Gulabsinh Parmar v. State Of Gujarat

2009-03-02

H.N.DEVANI, MOHIT S.SHAH

body2009
JUDGMENT : Mohit S. Shah, J. 1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 19th March 2008 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surendranagar & Election Officer, Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (respondent No. 3 herein), by which the objections lodged by the petitioner against inclusion of 54 cooperative societies (respondents No. 5 to 58 herein) in the provisional list of voters came to be rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Election Officer to delete the names of said respondent societies from the final list of voters of non-farm sector constituency of Surendranagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. which was published on 1st April 2008. 2. The gravamen of the challenge to inclusion of the said respondent societies in the final voters' list is that all these cooperative societies were enrolled as members of Surendranagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank" for short) after supersession of the elected managing committee and during the period when the administrator appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was exercising the powers and functions of the elected managing committee. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Mangukia for the petitioner that the Apex Court, in K. Shantharaj and another v. M.L. Nagaraj and others, (1997)6 SCC 37 and Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan and others, (2000) 6 SCC 127 , has held that the administrator appointed upon the supersession of the elected managing committee of a cooperative society has no power to enroll new members, and that the elections must be held on the basis of the role of members which was available prior to supersession of the committee. 3. The Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. is a specified cooperative society as provided under Section 74C of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State issued show cause notice to the Bank on 4th May 2006, calling upon the Bank to show cause as to why the managing committee of the Bank should not be superseded under Section 81 of the Act. The present petitioner, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Bank, submitted reply on 4th and 25th July, 2006. The present petitioner, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Bank, submitted reply on 4th and 25th July, 2006. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State passed order dated 26th July 2006 superseding the managing committee and appointing the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Surendranagar District as the Administrator under Section 81(2) of the Act. The said order was not challenged by the Bank, but was challenged by the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. on the ground that the State Cooperative Bank was not consulted, as required under Section 81(6) of the Act. The said petition came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 19th December 2007 and the order of the State Registrar was quashed only on the ground of non-compliance with Section 81(6) of the Act. However, by the time the said petition came to be allowed, the statutory term of the elected body under the chairmanship of the present petitioner was over and the State Registrar of Cooperative Societies passed an order dated 20th December 2007 under Section 74D of the Act appointing the District Registrar, Surendranagar as the custodian. That order came to be challenged before this Court by the present petitioner by way of Special Civil Application No. 114 of 2008. In that petition, a consensus formula was evolved and instead of District Registrar, the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. was appointed as the custodian. The Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd., accordingly took over as the custodian of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 11th April 2008. 4. As per the bylaws of the Bank i.e. Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., the managing committee comprises of twelve elected members, out of which nine directors are elected by cooperative societies in the farm sector and three directors are elected by cooperative societies in the non-farm sector. The petitioner is a voter in the non-farm sector. Hence, the controversy in the present petition only pertains to elections of three directors from the non-farm sector. The provisional list of voters for the said non-farm sector was published on 5th March 2008. The petitioner is a voter in the non-farm sector. Hence, the controversy in the present petition only pertains to elections of three directors from the non-farm sector. The provisional list of voters for the said non-farm sector was published on 5th March 2008. The objections were invited and the present petitioner submitted objections to the inclusion of fifty-four cooperative societies (respondents No. 5 to 58 herein), on the ground that they were enrolled as members by the administrator, and that, such enrolment was contrary to law as per the decisions of the Apex Court. The objections were overruled by the Deputy Collector & Election Officer (respondent No. 3 herein) by the impugned order dated 19th March 2008. Hence, the present petition. 5. During pendency of the petition, another writ petition came to be filed challenging the qualifications prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India for election of Directors (i.e. Members of the Managing Committee) of Cooperative Banks. In that petition, during pendency of that petition, it was agreed by the authorities that the elections of directors would not be held as representations were made to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The eligibility criteria for directors were changed by RBI and therefore, the statement not to hold elections was not continued. 6. The election programme came to be declared on 10th February 2009. The election programme is as under : Last date of receipt of nomination forms and filling nomination forms 16.02.2009 Date of scrutiny 24.02.2009 Date of publication of the list of eligible candidates 26.02.2009 Last date for withdrawing the nomination form 27.03.2009 Date of publication of the final list of candidates 03.03.2009 Date of polling, if required 13.03.2009 Date of counting 15.03.2009 Date of declaration of election results 15.03.2009 7. Mr. Mangukia for the petitioner has submitted that the candidates who are representatives of the cooperative societies which were enrolled as members of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. by the administrator of the Bank during the period between 26th July 2006 and 19th December 2007 should not be allowed to contest the elections. Similarly, such cooperative societies should not be permitted to vote at the elections. Strong reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Shantharaj and another v. M.L. Nagaraj and others, and Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan and others, (supra). 8. On the other hand, Mr. Similarly, such cooperative societies should not be permitted to vote at the elections. Strong reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Shantharaj and another v. M.L. Nagaraj and others, and Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan and others, (supra). 8. On the other hand, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for the authorities (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) and Mr. P.K. Jani with Mr. Rutvik Oza, learned advocate for the respondents No. 7, 8, 9 and 14 have opposed the petition. 9. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the enrolment of cooperative societies, being respondents No. 5 to 58 herein, has never been challenged by the petitioner, and that, the respondent No. 3 as the election officer cannot go behind the enrolment of such cooperative societies as members of the Bank. The election officer has acted on the basis of list of members as on 31st March 2007 received from the bank and the election officer cannot go behind such list of members. It is further submitted that the decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are not applicable as the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act contains certain additional provisions which were not to be found in the Karnataka and Kerala Acts considered by the Apex Court in the above decision. It is submitted that Section 81 does not stop at providing sub-section (2) of Section 81, but also contains subsection (5) which reads as under :- "All acts done or purported to be done by the committee or administrator during the period during which the affairs of the society are carried on by the committee or administrator appointed under sub-section (1), shall be binding on the new committee." It is submitted that such provision was not to be found in the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Reference is made to Rule 4(1) of the Election Rules and it is submitted that once such list is received by the election officer and published as the provisional list of voters, only those who are shown to have incurred disqualification under the Act or Rules or bye-laws, can be removed from the list. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the respondent societies have incurred any such disqualification. 10. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the respondent societies have incurred any such disqualification. 10. Besides, it is submitted that, under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, the administrator of the society himself was to conduct elections of the managing committee of the cooperative society which was under supersession, but under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, there is a different scheme altogether and under the provisions of Section 74C and other relevant provisions, the election for such specified cooperative society like the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., are to be conducted by the Collector or his nominee. It is, therefore, submitted that where the election officer and the administrator are two different authorities, the decisions of the Apex Court would not apply. 11. In the alternative, it is also submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Surendranagar who was at the relevant time the administrator of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., that the following facts indicated in his affidavit filed in these proceedings show that the administrator had acted bona fide and not to inflate the list of voters as alleged by the petitioner : 11.1 It transpires from the Annual Reports of the Bank that the number of members of the Bank was as under : Date Members 31/3/1998 637 31/3/1999 637 31/3/2000 636 31/3/2001 645 31/3/2002 645 31/3/2003 646 31/3/2004 645 31/3/2005 638 31/3/2006 639 11.2 When the petitioner was the Chairman of Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., the financial position of the Bank deteriorated considerably : (a) The Bank could not comply with Section 11(1) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 since 31.3.2003 and as per Reserve Bank of India norms, its borrowing capacity was Nil. (b) The accumulated loss of the bank in the year 2003-2004 was Rs.30.74 crores which was increased in the year 2004- 2005 to Rs.45.28 crores. Thus, the total loss was Rs.14.53 crores. (c) Since the new members were not enrolled and only supporters of the out-going elected body were being given financial assistance, the total amount becoming over-due was Rs.121.57 crores. (d) In the year 2003-2004, the Non-Performing Assets (NPA) was Rs.98.78 crores which was increased to Rs.99.03 crores. (e) There was a drastic decrease in deposits of the Bank to the extent of 33%. (d) In the year 2003-2004, the Non-Performing Assets (NPA) was Rs.98.78 crores which was increased to Rs.99.03 crores. (e) There was a drastic decrease in deposits of the Bank to the extent of 33%. (f) The bank could not maintain its liquidity and there was a short-fall of Rs. 10 crores in the statutory liquidity ratio. (g) Even in the audit conducted by NABARD in the year 2004-2005, large scale irregularities were noticed and recorded by NABARD. The situation became so grave that the then Minister for Cooperation had to conduct a High Level Meeting to deal with the aforesaid problems which was attended by the elected office bearers of the bank also. The elected body under the Chairmanship of the present petitioner did not carry out any of the decisions taken at such High Level Meeting. The Registrar, Cooperative societies, therefore, consulted the Reserve Bank of India as required under Section 115-A of the Act, who permitted the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to appoint an Administrator under Section 81 of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 4th May 2006 which was replied to by the petitioner (in his capacity as Chairman of the Bank at the relevant point of time) and others on 4th July 2006 and 25th July 2006. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State, thereafter, passed an order dated 26th July 2006 appointing the District Registrar as the Administrator. 12. In the affidavit in reply filed by the District Registrar (respondent No. 4), it is further stated as under :- "12 I state and submit that during my tenure as an Administrator and thereafter during the tenure of my successor as Administrator/Custodian, several cooperative societies approached us raising serious grievances that though they are fully functional cooperative societies and have been trying to be admitted to the membership of the Bank, the erstwhile elected body, on political considerations, according to such societies, were not admitting them as members and therefore they should now be enrolled as members. Many cooperative societies made representations that they have transactions with the bank running into crores of rupees and unless they are admitted to the membership, they would stop such transactions. It may be pointed out at this juncture that out of 54 respondent societies in non-farm sectors, 43 societies are village affiliated cooperative milk producers societies. Many cooperative societies made representations that they have transactions with the bank running into crores of rupees and unless they are admitted to the membership, they would stop such transactions. It may be pointed out at this juncture that out of 54 respondent societies in non-farm sectors, 43 societies are village affiliated cooperative milk producers societies. Such societies have their account with the Surendranagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. The total turn over of such account, individually, is in crores of rupees and in some cases in lacs of rupees. In other words, the bank was utilising such amounts deposited by them without having to pay any interest since such amounts were being deposited in Current Account. Such societies need financial assistance for various purpose like construction of a milk center, purchase of milko-tester, installation of AMC (Automatic Milk Collection) system etc. The contention raised by such societies with a threat of withdrawing financial transaction with the bank was to the effect that unless and until they are admitted to the membership, when the administration is in the hands of the neutral statutory authority, they would have no chance of availing such financial assistance even in future when the bank becomes financially sound and starts disbursing the credit facility. Withdrawal of such financial transaction by such societies would have adversely affected the interest of the bank. Even otherwise, considering the past record of the elected body, the statutory authorities including the deponent were satisfied that the allegations being made by many village level societies that they are deliberately not being enrolled as members, appears to be correct, since in spite of several new societies being registered in Surendranagar District who are functioning well, the figure of membership of the District Bank remained constant as pointed out herein above. It was found not only in the interest of justice, but necessary to infuse life into the district bank to take care of grievances of such large number of cooperative societies who were not merely societies on paper, but were actually functioning in their respective areas of operation. It was found not only in the interest of justice, but necessary to infuse life into the district bank to take care of grievances of such large number of cooperative societies who were not merely societies on paper, but were actually functioning in their respective areas of operation. Under the circumstances, having found the grievances of such societies legitimate and having found that they are deprived of their right to be members by the earlier elected body on considerations which are other than legal, such societies were admitted to the membership in the larger interest of the bank and as a measure of infusing life into the functioning of the bank." (emphasis supplied) 13. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the enrolment of the respondent societies was bona fide and was legal and valid. It is submitted that the Apex Court has held in Jt. Registrar Co-op. Societies, Madras v. Rajagopal, AIR 1970 SC 992 = 1970(1) SCC 753 that "the object of supersession apparently is to appoint a Special Officer or a managing committee in order to set the working of the society right. It is not difficult to envisage a situation where maladministration by a committee has so adversely affected the functioning of the society that it is essential in the interests of the society itself to give temporarily the control of its affairs to a neutral authority". It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies v. TA Kuttappan, 2000(6) SCC 127 , that the role of an Administrator appointed by the Registrar while the committee of management is under supersession, is to bring on an even keel a ship which was in doldrums. The learned Addl. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies v. TA Kuttappan, 2000(6) SCC 127 , that the role of an Administrator appointed by the Registrar while the committee of management is under supersession, is to bring on an even keel a ship which was in doldrums. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the very fact that the petitioner was the Chairman of the Bank for the last about six years and did not allow any addition to the membership (only cooperative societies can become members of the Bank) and the fact that the financial position of the Bank has been precarious for the last about six years (as indicated in para 11.2 herein above), there would be no hope of revival of the Bank if only borrowers of the Bank were to continue as members of the Bank and cooperative societies with funds to deposit with the bank would not have been enrolled as members. It is submitted that the tendency on the part of the borrower - members is towards liquidation of the Bank so that they would not have to repay the loan amounts immediately or they would get various concessions like waiver of interest, one-time settlement etc. It is also submitted that the action of the Administrator in enrolling respondent Nos. 5 to 58 was in the interest of the Bank and not against the interest of the Bank nor to inflate the list of voters. It is also submitted that the very fact that as against the strength of 639 members of the Bank as on 31.3.2006, only 54 cooperative societies are added in the voters' list for the non-farm sector (and only about 15 cooperative societies in the farm sector as stated in para 16 of the petition) and those societies were registered as cooperative societies for a number of years, if not decades, and that they were having transactions with the bank, are sufficient to show the bona fides of the Administrator. The learned Addl. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that but for induction of the cooperative societies which have been functioning in Surendranagar district for a number of years and which have funds with them to deposit with the Bank, the Bank would have gone from a situation bad to worse and the object of bringing on an even keel a ship which was in doldrums would not be achieved. 14. On behalf of the four cooperative societies, Mr. P.K. Jani, learned advocate has relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 14 :- "(6) I state and submit that the answering respondent is functioning since last several years and is not a society existing on paper but is actually carrying out the objects for which it is registered. The answering respondent has banking transactions with Surendranagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. since last several years before and after its admission to membership of the bank. Large number of cooperative societies were being admitted to the membership by the erstwhile elected body under the Chairmanship of the present petitioner. The petitioner has found many societies to be politically opposed to him and therefore in spite of repeated requests, they were not being enrolled. The answering respondent and many others, therefore, approached the District Registrar when he was appointed as an Administrator seeking justice. Since the District Registrar being a neutral statutory authority having no political considerations, found the case of such societies to be genuine in enrolling the answering respondent and others as members. I crave leave to produce before this Hon'ble Court the financial transactions of the answering respondent society with the Surendranagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. at the time of hearing of this petition." Mr. Jani has further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Amritlal Manchanda, AIR 2004 SC 1625 in support of the submission that the Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. Circumstantial flexilibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two different cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. Observations of the Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. Circumstantial flexilibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two different cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. Reliance is also placed on the following observations of Lord Denning quoted in the above decision :- "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." *** *** *** "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds considerable substance in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Deputy Collector & Election Officer had to act on the basis of the list of members of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. as on 31st March 2007 as forwarded by the custodian of the Bank. Admittedly, the custodian of the Bank (officer of Gujarat State Cooperative Bank appointed as custodian of the Bank with the consent of the petitioner) and the election officer (Collector or his nominee - Dy. Collector in this case) are different authorities. Rule 4(1) of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982, reads as under : "(4). Provisional list of voters : (1) A provisional list of voters shall be prepared in Gujarati by every society for the year in which general election is due to be held. Persons who are members as on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due shall be included in the provisional list. Persons who are members as on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due shall be included in the provisional list. If different constituencies are provided in the bye-laws, the names of voters shall be arranged constituency wise as laid down in the bye-laws. (2) Four copies of the authenticated provisional lists of voters shall be sent by every society to the Collector, through the District Registrar so as to reach the Collector within 15 days from the date of drawing up the accounts of the year in which the general election is due. Copies of the said list shall be displayed on the notice board of the society, the District Registrar concerned and the Collector within 20 days, from the date of drawing up the accounts for inviting claims and objections. (3) Simultaneously with sending of provisional list of voters under sub-clause (2) every society shall send in writing to the Collector a list of members who are disqualified to vote as per the provisions of the Act, Rules or its Bye-laws and shall inform to the member who has been shown disqualified in the said list in writing, pointing out such disqualification incurred by him. The said list shall be treated as objection under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6." (emphasis supplied) 16. The petitioner, who was the Chairman of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. at the relevant time prior to supersession of the Bank has not challenged the enrolment of the members. Bye-law No. 8 of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Rules, reads as under : "All registered cooperative societies within Surendranagar District which have through their representative subscribed to the application of registration are original members. Every cooperative society registered within the area of operation of the Bank shall be eligible for membership. (i) The membership of the bank shall also be open to institutions or bodies corporate registered under the Societies Registration Act and functioning in the area of operation of this bank. Such members will not however be eligible for any kind of loans or advances from the bank." (emphasis supplied) It is, thus, clear that, as per the said bye-law, every cooperative society within Surendranagar district is eligible for membership. Such members will not however be eligible for any kind of loans or advances from the bank." (emphasis supplied) It is, thus, clear that, as per the said bye-law, every cooperative society within Surendranagar district is eligible for membership. It is not the petitioner's case that the respondent societies are not eligible as per the bye-laws of the society. 17. The petitioner, however, submits that, by a resolution passed by the general body of the bank in July 2008, the admission of members by the administrator was cancelled. What is the efficacy of this resolution which is produced for the first time on the record of this petition today? Once the power to enroll new members is admittedly vested into the managing committee of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and the said power came to be exercised by the administrator, the members admitted cannot be deprived of their membership by taking recourse to Sections 73 and 74 of the Act and without recourse being had to the provisions of Section 23, Section 24 or Section 36 of the Act. Admittedly, no such procedure was followed. Section 23 provides for removal from membership in certain circumstances. Section 24 provides for appeal to the appellate authority. No notice was issued to respondents No. 5 to 58 for expulsion under Section 36 of the Act. Admittedly no notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to respondent Nos. 5 to 58 before passing the resolution alleged to have been passed in July 2008. In this view of the matter, the election officer was justified in proceeding on the basis of the list of members forwarded by the custodian of the Bank (Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. was appointed as custodian with the consent of the petitioner) which was the basis of publication of the provisional list of voters on 5th March 2008 and the final list of voters on 1st April 2008. 18. As held by the Apex Court in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000)8 SCC 216 , the Court must be very circumspect. Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein. 19. Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein. 19. As per the settled legal position, this Court is not to interfere with the election process at this stage, when the nomination forms of the candidates are already accepted. Allowing the petition would require quashing and setting aside the final list of voters published on 1st April 2008 and directing the election officer to delete the fifty-four cooperative societies from the final list of voters and also restraining representatives of such societies from contesting the elections to the office of Directors i.e. Members of the Managing Committee of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. after they have already filed their nomination forms. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to hold that directing the Election Officer to revise the final list of voters published as far back as on 1.4.2008 would be merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings. This Court has also noted the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General that 54 respondent - societies enrolled by the administrator as members between 26th July 2006 and 19th December 2007 were not mere paper societies or societies which had come up after appointment of the administrator only to inflate the list of voters, but they were registered as cooperative societies long prior to appointment of the administrator and they were having transactions with the Bank. 20. We may also note that although the petition was filed on 27.3.2008, the petitioner or his learned advocate had not shown any urgency for expeditious hearing of the petition before declaration of the election programme on 10.2.2009. Another petition was filed in April 2008 only to challenge the qualifications prescribed by Reserve Bank of India for election of Directors of a cooperative bank (i.e. members of managing committee of a cooperative bank) and the said petition never involved any challenge to the final voters' list which was already published on 1.4.2008. 21. Another petition was filed in April 2008 only to challenge the qualifications prescribed by Reserve Bank of India for election of Directors of a cooperative bank (i.e. members of managing committee of a cooperative bank) and the said petition never involved any challenge to the final voters' list which was already published on 1.4.2008. 21. At one stage, Mr Mangukia submitted that the Election Officer cannot support the impugned order dated 19.3.2008 with the aid of affidavits and that validity of the order dated 19.3.2008 must be judged on the basis of its contents and not on the basis of the affidavit filed by the administrator. 22. We have carefully considered the above submission. However, we find considerable substance in the submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General that in the first place the petitioner has not challenged enrolment of members by the administrator, nor has the petitioner joined the administrator or custodian of the Bank as a party, but indirectly the petitioner is challenging such enrolment. Since the District Registrar was at the relevant time the administrator, the affidavit has been filed by the then administrator to show that enrolment of members by him at the relevant time was bona fide and in the interest of the Bank. 23. In Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, 2000 (8) SCC 216 , the Apex Court has held that the Court must be very circumspect and the Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings and that in the very nature of things, the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out. In the said decision, in para 28, the Apex Court has also held as under :- "Election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties. Though there is an individual or a few individuals arrayed as parties before the Court but the stakes of the constituency as a whole are on trial. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens generally. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of overenthusiastic activist would do. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens generally. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of overenthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes." (emphasis supplied) 24. In view of the above salutary principle laid down by Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra), we do not consider this to be a fit case for interfering with the election process by turning a blind eye to the facts pointed out by the administrator and the submissions of the learned Addl. Advocate General which have a bearing on the overriding consideration for the welfare of the constituency. 25. However, having regard to the object underlying the principles laid down by the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner, we think it fit to impose a condition that the Election Officer shall permit only those cooperative societies in the non-farm sector included in the final list of voters published on 1.4.2008, to participate in the elections of three Directors of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. in the non-farm sector (which were registered as cooperative societies prior to appointment of the administrator on 26.7.2006). :: Operative Order :: 26. We are not inclined to entertain this petition when the election process has already commenced. However, having regard to the object underlying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in K. Shantharaj and another v. M.L. Nagaraj and others, (1997)6 SCC 37 and Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan and others, (2000)6 SCC 127 , we direct that the Election Officer shall permit only those cooperative societies included in the final voters' list for the non-farm sector to participate in the elections of three Directors of the Surendranagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. from the non-farm sector, (which were registered as cooperative societies prior to appointment of the Administrator on 26th July 2006). 27. Subject to the above direction, the petition is dismissed. Petition is dismissed.