Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 268 (GUJ)

SODVADAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2010-06-01

K.M.THAKER, R.M.DOSHIT

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, an Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is a member of the respondent no.4-Bank which is a “specified society” within the meaning of Section 74(c) of the Act. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent no. 2 directing him to prepare the provisional list of voters in accordance with Rule 5 and 6 of the 1982 Rules and has further prayed for direction to the respondent no. 2 to hold the election of the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 4-Bank in accordance with Rule 3-A(8) of the 1982 Rules. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the below mentioned relief(s):- “6(a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondent no. 2 election officer to held election for the Board of Directors of respondent no. 4 Bank as per the provisions of Rule 3A (8) and also be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to follow the provisions of rule 5 & 6 by publishing preliminary voters list before publishing the final voters list." 2.1. We should, at the outset, mention and clarify that the petitioner and the respondents have jointly submitted that the Election Programme has yet not been notified. It is in view of the said statement to the effect that the Election Programme has yet not been set in motion that we have entertained this petition. It is also appropriate to mention at this stage that other petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 5430, 7265, 8472, 8473 of 2009 along with Civil Application No. 7194 of 2009 raise almost similar issues. The learned Counsel for the contesting parties have jointly requested for hearing of the said petitions with Special Civil Application No. 9748 of 2009. Hence, all these petitions are heard and decided together by this common judgment. Since, except some dates and events which may differ, almost the facts are similar and the main contesting respondent bank is common in all these petitions, for the sake of convenience the facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 9748 of 2009 have been taken into account and recorded in this judgment. The counsel for the respondents in all petitions have waived notice of Rule. The counsel for the respondents in all petitions have waived notice of Rule. With consent of all advocates of concerned parties, the petitions are heard finally. 3. The petitioner has sought the aforesaid relief and raised the challenge in the backdrop of the below mentioned facts:- 3.1. The election of the Board of Directors of respondent no. 4-Bank (hereinafter referred to as “election”) are due and the respondent no. 2 has been appointed as the “Election Officer” to conduct the election. The elections are required to be conducted as per the provisions contained in Chapter XI-A of the Act. 3.2. Under his notice dated 6th June 2009 the Election Officer published the provisional list of voters on 06.06.2009 and invited objections, if any, with regard to the said list. 3.3. It appears that after the above referred notice dated 6th June 2009 certain objections were raised claiming, inter alia, that as per the position prevailing as on 31st March 2009 the said voters list did not accurately reflect the factual position (prevailing as on 31.03.2009) and several fictitious names were appearing in the said list. 3.4. The petitioner has also claimed that on 12th June 2009 it had filed its objections and pointed out that the list did not reflect the actual and accurate position as on 31st March 2009. 3.5. After considering the objections on 18.06.2009, the respondent no. 2 passed an order dated 23rd June 2009 directing publication of provisional voters list in accordance with and having regard to the decisions and instructions recorded in the order dated 23.06.2009. 3.6. As per the claim of the petitioner society, in pursuance of the Elections Officer's aforesaid order dated. 23.6.2009, the general manager of the respondent No. 4-Bank, vide his communication dated 24th June 2009, invited resolutions, so as to reach on or before 4.7.2009, from the member societies on the basis of the position as on 31st March 2009. 3.7. The petitioner society has claimed that pursuant to the said communication dated 24.6.2009 sent by the respondent No. 4-Bank, about 807 societies submitted, before or on 4-7-2009, fresh resolutions on the basis of the position prevailing, in the respective societies, as on 31st March 2009. 3.8. It is also stated that the respondent No. 4-Bank, after receipt of the resolutions from almost 807 societies, prepared and forwarded a list, under its covering letter dated 4-7-2009 to the election officer. 3.8. It is also stated that the respondent No. 4-Bank, after receipt of the resolutions from almost 807 societies, prepared and forwarded a list, under its covering letter dated 4-7-2009 to the election officer. The said list has been, as alleged by the petitioner, treated and published as the final list of voters. 4. Mr. Vakharia learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Mr. Desai learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Mehta learned Additional Advocate General has appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. N.D. Nanavati learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Navin Pahwa learned advocate has appeared for the respondent no. 4-Bank Mr. B.S. Patel has appeared in Special Civil Application No.7265 of 2009 and in Civil Application No. 7194 of 2009. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4.1. Mr. Vakharia learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the impugned decision of the respondent No. 2-Election Officer directing the list of voters published on 4th July 2009 as the final list of voters is contrary to Rule 5 to Rule 7 of the 1982 Rules. He has submitted that after the provisional list of voters is published, objections are required to be invited and only after deciding the objections, the final list of voters can be prepared and published. Mr. Vakharia referred to the election officer's order dated 23rd June 2009 (placed on record at pages 30 to 38 of Special Civil Application No. 8199 of 2009). He also referred to the subsequent communication dated 24th June 2009 forwarded by the respondent No. 4-Bank to the member societies in pursuance of the election officer's aforesaid order dated 23rd June 2009. He submitted that to cut the matter short, the letter dated 24.6.2009 can be, in the facts of the case, treated as the invitation by specified society to its member societies to send, under Rule 5(2) the names of the delegates. Mr. He submitted that to cut the matter short, the letter dated 24.6.2009 can be, in the facts of the case, treated as the invitation by specified society to its member societies to send, under Rule 5(2) the names of the delegates. Mr. Vakharia, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per Rule 6 objection against such list should then be invited, however, indisputably the said requirement has not been complied with in respect of the list prepared on 4.7.2009 inasmuch as the respondent-Bank forwarded the list (prepared on the basis of resolutions received between 24.6.2009 and 4.7.2009 pursuant to the communication dated 24.6.2009) to the Election Officer on 4.7.2009 branding it as final list of voters and in view of the respondent bank's communication dated 4.7.2009, the Election Officer has passed the order on 16th July, 2009 publishing, under Rule 7 the list (forwarded by the respondent No. 4-Bank on 4.7.2009) as the final list of voters. Hence the order dated 16th July 2009 is not sustainable. 4.2. Mr. Vakharia has also submitted that the respondent no. 2-Election Officer is obliged to conduct the election of the Board of Directors of respondent no. 4-Bank in accordance with Rule 3A (8) of 1982 Rules, however it is clear that the election is going to be conducted in accordance with the bye-law no. 30(1) of the respondent no. 4-Bank and not as per Rule 3A (8). He submitted that as the said bye-law no. 30(1) is not in conformity with rule 3A (8) of the 1982 Rules inasmuch as it provides for more than one seat in one constituency which is contrary to Rule 3-A(8) of 1982 Rules and since the statutory rules should prevail over the bye-laws, the election ought to be conducted in accordance with rule 3A(8) of 1982 Rules and not as per bye-law no. 30(1). He submitted that the respondent no. 2-Election Officer needs to be directed to conduct the election as per Rule 3A(8). The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision in case of Antakampa Milk Producers' Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Sabarkantha Dist. Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. ( 2004(1) GLR 310 ) 5. Mr. Mehta learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent nos. 2-Election Officer needs to be directed to conduct the election as per Rule 3A(8). The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision in case of Antakampa Milk Producers' Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Sabarkantha Dist. Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. ( 2004(1) GLR 310 ) 5. Mr. Mehta learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that if the Court considers that the decision reported in 2004(1) GLR 310 would be applicable in the facts of the present case and that the number of Directors to be elected from the representatives of Credit Co-operative Societies is not in accordance with Rule 3A(8) then it would be necessary for the Election Officer to conduct the election as per Rule 3A(8) and to proceed on the basis that bye-law no. 30(1) is not in conformity with Rule 3A(8) of 1982 Rules. He, however, submitted that “constituency” contemplated under Rule 3A (8) shall mean the constituency as defined under Section 2(b) and therefore it is for the respondent no. 4-Bank to determine its own constituency and the contention that bye-law 30(1) does not conform to Rule 3A(8) is not justified. 5.1. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that by the decision dated 23rd June 2009 the respondent no. 2-Election Officer decided the objections received in respect of provisional list of voters published on 6th June 2009 and that therefore the list prepared and published after addressing the decision of the Election Officer in the order dated 23rd June 2009 is and ought to be considered as final list of voters as contemplated under Rule 7. 6. Mr. Nanavati learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4-Bank opposed the petition on the ground of maintainability and submitted that in view of provisions under Section 145(U) there is a statutory alternative remedy by way of Election Petition and that therefore the petition, at this stage, is not maintainable. He also submitted that the election process has already commenced and that therefore this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not interfere with the election process. He also submitted that the election process has already commenced and that therefore this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not interfere with the election process. He also submitted that the list prepared on 4th July 2009 is prepared and finalized after the election officer's decision dated 5.6.2009 and 23.6.2009 taken after considering the objections received pursuant to the publication of provisional list of voters on 6th June 2009 prior to which the list was published under Notice dated 25.5.2009 and that therefore the list of voters published on 4th July 2009 is, as rightly stated in order dated 16th July 2009, final list of voters under Rule 7 of the 1982 Rules. 6.1. So far as the petitioner's contentions with regard to bye-law no. 3A(8) of 1982 Rules is concerned, Mr. Nanavati addressed the said contention on the same lines of arguments as the learned Additional Advocate General and further submitted that there are similar rules in various other specified societies. He submitted that so far as the respondent no. 4-Bank is concerned, the provision regarding constituency and number of seats is contained in the bye-law No. 30(1) and all member societies including petitioners have acquiesced with the bye-laws since last about 50 years. He submitted that even the petitioner has never raised any objection against the bye-laws. He also submitted that if however the Court comes to the conclusion that the bye-law no. 30(1) does not conform to the Rule 3A(8), then the respondent no. 4-Bank cannot dispute the preposition that the statutory rules should prevail over the bye-law. He was, however, quick to add that the submission is without prejudice to the fundamental contention that the bye-law no. 30(1) does not violate Rule 3A(8) and there is no conflict between the two. 7. So far as the objection against the order dated 16.7.2009 and against the voters list prepared on 4.7.2009 is concerned, it needs to be noted that the facts of present case are mostly similar to the facts in Special Civil Application No. 8199 of 2009 (except some differences in respect of facts not very material so far as point of law is concerned). Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment and order rendered in Special Civil Application No. 8199 of 2009 we, in present case also, hold that “the respondent no. Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment and order rendered in Special Civil Application No. 8199 of 2009 we, in present case also, hold that “the respondent no. 2 - Election Officer is not justified in declaring the list given by the respondent no. 4-Bank, as the final list of voters under and for the purpose of Rule 7 of 1982 Rules. It is, therefore, necessary to direct the respondent no. 2-Election Officer to invite objections in connection with the list of voters submitted to the Election Officer on 4th July 2009 and take appropriate decision with regard to the objections in accordance with law.” 8. Now, coming to the contention based on the Rule 3A(8) of 1982 Rules which reads thus:- “3A(8):- Where the area of operation of a society is in more than one village, the number of constituencies shall be equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under sub-section (1) of Section 74-B.” The definition of the term “constituency” referred to in the said provision is to be found in Rule 2(b) of 1982 Rules which reads: “constituency” means an electoral devision, if any, and specified in the bye-laws of the specified societies”. 9. The petitioners claim that the bye-law No. 30(1) of the respondent No.4- Bank does not conform to the said Rule 3A(8) inasmuch as the said bye-law provides for more than one seat in a constituency. 10. On perusal of the said bye-law it emerges that the membership of the respondent No.4-Bank comprises various societies carrying on different objective/activities i.e. the member societies are of different types/categories such as “Agricultural Credit Multipurpose Service and Farming Co-operative Societies and Non-agricultural Credit Society and other societies which provides loans to their members” and sale and purchase union as well as marketing and processing societies etc. 11. It also comes out, on perusal of the said bye-law No. 30(1), that the respondent No. 4-Bank has allotted representation to its member societies on the basis of the “object and activities” of the member societies. Differently put, the representation is not allotted on territorial basis but it is allotted on the basis of objects and activities of the member societies. 12. Differently put, the representation is not allotted on territorial basis but it is allotted on the basis of objects and activities of the member societies. 12. It deserves to be noted that the said Rule 3A(8) belongs to the family of Rules which pertain to “Delimitation of constituencies” and the specified society's obligation to prepare the “list of constituencies” for the purpose of election. The sub-Rules (1) and (2) of the Rule 3A read thus:- “3A Delimitation of constituencies for purpose of election.- (1) In every society where there are more than one constituencies, the Secretary or where there is no post of Secretary, the Chief Executive Officer of every such society shall, in the year preceding the year in which election to the Committee is scheduled to be held, prepare a provisional list of the constituencies. (2) Such list shall describe the limits of each constituency. A copy of the provisional list shall be displayed with a notice to be signed by the Secretary or where there is no post of Secretary, the chief Executive Officer of the society on the notice board of every office or sub-office of the society. A copy of such provisional list along with the notice shall also be sent to the Registrar and to the Collector.” 13. The sub-Rule (1) obliges the specified society to prepare a “provisional list of constituencies” where there are more than one constituencies. 14. The sub-Rule (2) requires that the provisional list shall describe “the limits” of each constituencies and it shall be displayed on the notice board and a copy shall be forwarded to the Collector. When the said sub-Rule refers to “limits”, it is obvious that the reference is to the geographical or territorial boundaries/limits. 15. The sub-Rules (3) to (7) prescribe the procedure for considering the objections, if any, against the “list of constituencies” and its finalisation. In the event the elections are required to be held before the accounting year ends, then as per sub-Rule (9), the Collector has to carry out the delimitation of the constituencies before the publication of voters list. 15. The sub-Rules (3) to (7) prescribe the procedure for considering the objections, if any, against the “list of constituencies” and its finalisation. In the event the elections are required to be held before the accounting year ends, then as per sub-Rule (9), the Collector has to carry out the delimitation of the constituencies before the publication of voters list. The said sub-Rule (9) reads thus:- “(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules and the bye-laws of the society, where the elections to the members of any Committee are scheduled to be held before the ending of the accounting year of the society, the delimitation of the constituencies shall be made by the Collector prior to the publication of the list of voters.” 16. The sub-Rule (8)-which is invoked in present case has to be read, it being part of Rule 3A, along with Sub-Rules (1) and (2) and in light of the fact that it is part of the Rules which deal with delimitation of societies. The said sub-Rule (8) inter alia provides that where the “area of operation” of the specified society (in present case respondent no. 4) is in more than one village, the “number of constituencies” shall “be equal to the total number of seats” (excluding 2 reserved seats). It is in light of the said provision that the petitioner has submitted that the number of seats, in any case, can never by more than the number of constituencies of the concerned specified society. 17. The petitioner has, so as to lend support to its contention, relied on the judgment in the case of Antakampa Milk Producers (supra). We should note that the issue raised in the said case was considered and decided in different set of facts, particularly the fact that in the said case certain constituencies did not get any representation/seat at all. In the cited case of Antakampa Milk Producers (supra)it was claimed that three constituencies did not get any representation/seat since the specified society had not allotted any seat/representation to three member societies. Furthermore, in the said case the constituencies were bifurcated zone or territory-wise. In the cited case of Antakampa Milk Producers (supra)it was claimed that three constituencies did not get any representation/seat since the specified society had not allotted any seat/representation to three member societies. Furthermore, in the said case the constituencies were bifurcated zone or territory-wise. Since the said case has been decided in different set of facts than the facts posed before us, the said authority does not help the petitioner and that therefore it is not necessary for us to enter into further discussion or make any other observations in present case and we do not propose to. 18. The Rule 3A of the 1982 Rules employs phrases “the limits” and “the area” which give indication about the scope and purport of the said provisions as well as about the intention of the legislature. 18.1. The usage of the said phrases, coupled with the fact that the entire Rule 3A deals with the “delimitation of constituencies”, make it clear that the said provisions - including the sub-Rule (8) - are aimed at geographical i.e. territory or zone wise bifurcation or division. Consequently their field of operation is aimed at or restricted to territory wise/geographically divided electorate. The bifurcation of electorate or creation of constituencies only on territorial basis i.e. zone-wise bifurcation could be more practicable in those specified societies where the members constitute a homogenous group, however in the specified societies where the members comprise a heterogenous group and one or two categories of the member societies have larger presence than other categories of member societies, a zone-wise bifurcation may not be so practicable and the specified society may allot representation on the basis of objects and activities of its member societies. 19. An important feature of the sub-Rule (8) is that the words “the number of constituencies” precedes the words “the total number of seats”, hence it follows that it is the number of constituencies which shall be equal to the number of seats. The petitioner claims that in the case of the respondent No. 4-Bank the number of seats is more than the number of constituencies and thus the bye law 30(1) is not in conformity with Rule 3A(8) and therefore the election should not be permitted to be held as per bye-law 30(1). 20. The petitioner claims that in the case of the respondent No. 4-Bank the number of seats is more than the number of constituencies and thus the bye law 30(1) is not in conformity with Rule 3A(8) and therefore the election should not be permitted to be held as per bye-law 30(1). 20. The objection of petitioner does not deserve to be entertained mainly for two reasons viz (a) it appears that the petitioner is overlooking important provision; viz. Rule-43 of the 1982 Rules and (b) the petitioner has missed the stage and lost the right to raise such objection. 21. We may take the second point, first. It is pertinent that it is not the case of the petitioner that the “provisional list of constituencies” and thereafter the “final list of constituencies” were not published as per sub-Rules (2) and (7) of Rule 3A and/or were not forwarded to the Registrar and the Collector. 21.1. Thus, it is not unsafe to proceed on the premise that the requirement and procedure under sub-Rules (2) and (7) of Rule 3A were duly followed. 21.2. When the petitioner did not raise any objection under and as per sub-Rules (5) and (6) of Rule 3-A, it lost the right to raise objection on any ground including the ground raised in petition i.e. number of constituencies vis-a-vis number of seats. 22. Besides this, while urging the said contention, the petitioner is missing the provision under Rule 43 of 1982 Rules. 22.1 The said sub-Rule 43 inter alia prescribes the procedure for voting where more than one seat are to be filled in one constituency (or where there are no separate constituencies) and reads thus:- “43. Procedure for voting where there no separate constituencies or more than one seat to be filled in one constituency.- In cases where there are no constituencies defined in the bye-laws or where more than one seat is authorised in the bay-laws for a constituency, voting in so far as these seats are concerned shall be recorded in accordance with the following provisions namely:- (a) Every voter shall be entitled to give as many votes as there are seats for filling which votes are to be taken but no voter shall give more than one vote to any one candidate. (b) The voter shall make a mark on the ballot paper with the instrument supplied for the purpose on or near the symbols of the candidate or candidates for whom he intends to vote, so however, that no part of any mark so made shall appear in the space provided for other candidate. The voter shall thereafter fold the marked ballot paper so as to conceal his vote and insert the folded ballot paper into the ballot box and without undue delay leave the polling station.” 22.2. On reading of the said Rule it emerges that reference of sub-Clause (a), in the context of the petition, is apposite at this stage. 22.3. It is evident from the words “or where more than one seat is authorised in the bye laws for a constituency” in the said Rule-43 that the said Rule contemplates and envisages that in a set-up of a specified society there may be more than one seat for one constituency. The only requirement which the said Rule mandates is that the bye law of the specified society must authorise more than one seat for a constituency. 22.4. The said provision holds additional weightage in view of the fact that it finds place amidst the provisions which deal with the stage of voting or voting procedure. 22.5. The sub-clause (a) of Rule 43 further substantiates the position that the 1982 Rules do envisage a situation where there may be more than one seat for a constituency. The sub-Clause (a) provides that: “every voter shall be entitled to give as many votes as there are seats for filling...” When the said sub-clause, and particularly the words “give as many votes as there are seats” in the said sub-Clause (a), are read with the words “or where more than one seat is authorised in the bye laws for a constituency”, it emerges that under the 1982 Rules a situation has been envisaged, upon taking into account a possibility, wherein a specified society may allot larger representation to a particular category of society in one constituency and so as to take care of such situation the Rules have also prescribed the procedure for voting when one constituency has more than one seat. As per the said sub-clause (a) the only restriction which is imposed is that a voter cannot give more than one vote to one candidate. 22.6. As per the said sub-clause (a) the only restriction which is imposed is that a voter cannot give more than one vote to one candidate. 22.6. Considered from another angle and perspective the said sub-Rule confers or guards the voters' right to cast equal number of votes as there are seats to be filled up and it also upholds the right of a specified society to allot representation to its member societies depending on their number/strength i.e. to provide for (in its bye-laws) as many seats as it considers appropriate. 23. The Rule 43, inter alia, takes care of such allotment and protects the right of voters in the segment having higher allotment of representation in the same manner as the voter in other segment. 24. Though it may prima facie appear that there is conflict between the two provisions however in view of the respective objects and fields of operation of Rule 3A and Rule 43 there would not be any conflict. When Rule 3A and Rule 43 are examined in juxtaposition it emerges that the object as well as the field of operation of the said two provisions are different inasmuch as the former deals only with “constituencies” bifurcated on territorial/zone basis. Even otherwise on harmonious construction both provisions can stand and operate. 25. Hence, the petitioner does not appear to be right and justified in its second contention with regard to bye-law 30(1) to the effect that it is contrary to Rule 3A(8). The said contention is not sustainable and it overlooks the provision under sub-Rule 43, which, as aforesaid, envisages more than one seat in one constituency and even prescribes the procedure for voting in the cases where there are more than one seat in a constituency. 26. In the aforesaid view of the matter the contention does not impress us and we do not find merits. The contention cannot be accepted and it fails. 27. As an upshot of the foregoing discussion the order dated 16.7.2009 is set aside and it is directed that the list prepared and forwarded by the respondent No. 4-Bank on 4.7.2009 shall be treated as provisional list of voters and further procedure in accordance with the 1982 Rules shall be followed. The election officer shall take all necessary steps so as to hold and conclude the election without delay and in accordance with the Rules. The election officer shall take all necessary steps so as to hold and conclude the election without delay and in accordance with the Rules. The petition is, accordingly partly allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent and effect. So far as the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 8472 of 2009 (Rampar Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.) is concerned the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the election process of Managing Committee of Shree Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd, Rajkot i.e. respondent no. 4-Bank in Special Civil Application No. 9748 of 2009. In writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 8473 of 2009 (Jambudi Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd & others vs. State of Gujarat & others) the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the election process of Managing Committee of Shree Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd, Rajkot and has also prayed that the respondent authorities be restrained from appointing custodian. In the aforesaid Civil Application No.7194 of 2009 (Vithalbhai Hansrajbhai Radadia and others vs. State of Gujarat and others) the applicants have prayed that it may be impleaded as party respondent no. 5 in Special Civil Application No. 5430 of 2009. In writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 5430 of 2009 (Vithalbhai Hansrajbhai Radadia and others vs. State of Gujarat and others) the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for directions to the respondent authorities to take steps in accordance with law for constitution of Managing Committee of Shree Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Ltd and restrain the authorities from exercising powers under Section 74-D of the Act. In writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7265 of 2009 (The Rajkot Lodhika Co-operative Sales and Purchase Union Ltd & ors vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State & Ors) the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that the notice dated 25th May 2009 publishing the provisional voter's list be set aside and the respondent authorities i.e. the respondent no. 1-the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State may be directed to hold the election for the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 4-Bank. In view of the decision in SCA No. 9748 of 2009 and the aforesaid direction other or separate order is not required in SCA Nos. 1-the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State may be directed to hold the election for the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 4-Bank. In view of the decision in SCA No. 9748 of 2009 and the aforesaid direction other or separate order is not required in SCA Nos. 5430, 7265, 8472, 8473 and in CA No. 7194 of 2009 and the said petitions and the application stand disposed of in terms of this judgment and order. In view of the aforesaid directions and particularly direction to hold and conclude the election without delay in accordance with Rules any order restraining the authorities from exercising powers under Section 74-D will not be necessary.