Order PER: MR. K. S. JHAVERI .I. ;- 1. The present petition is filed praying for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 03.11.2008 fixing the schedule of elections of the respondent No.6 Union and further to declare that the election process of election:.; of the Executive Committee of the respondent No.6 Union is illegal and against the o provisions of the Act and also to direct the respondent Authonties to denovo carry out the process of elections of Executive Committee of the respondent No. 6 Union in conformity with Rule 3A of the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies (Ejection to Committees) Rules, 1982. 1.1 The petitioners have also prayed to quash and set aside the Bye-law No. 35(1) of the respondent No. 6 Union and also to quash and set aside the order dated 12.11.2008 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture and Co-operative Department in Revision Application Nos. 186 & 189 of 2008. 2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present petition, in a nutshell. are laid down as under :- 2.1 The petitioners are co-operative societies registered under the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. 1961. The respondent No.6 Union is a Specified Co-operative Society under Section 74-C of the Act. In the year 2006, the respondent No.6 Union in its annual general meeting amended bye-law No. 35(1) and other divisions. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat approved the said amendment and the objections of some of the member societies against the said amendment were rejected. 2.2 The petitioners filed revision applications No. 168 & 189 of 2008 before the State Government inter alia praying to quash and set aside the amendment in bye-law No. 35(1) of the respondent No. 6 Union. Notice was issued in the said applications and on 07.10.2008 the hearing of the revision applications was adjourned to 04.11.2008. On 04.10.2008, a notice was published in the newspaper - Divya Bhaskar by the Election Officer and the respondent No. 6 Union inviting objections to the voters list. 2.3 The petitioners, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 12278 of I 2008 before this Court praying for issuance of an appropriate writ prohibiting the respondents No. 5 & 6 from preparing voters' list In consonance with the principle 'one man ; one vote'. This Court vide order dated 10.10.2008 directed the revisional Authority to the effect that in view of the urgency involved. This Court vide order dated 10.10.2008 directed the revisional Authority to the effect that in view of the urgency involved. the revision applications shall be heard on 17. 10.2008. This Court with the said direction disposed of the petition without observing anything on merits. 2.4 However, the revision 'applications were not decided. Thereafter, the petitioners' representative personally gave an application to the respondent No. 2 Revisional Authority to decide the revision application and to pronounce the order forthwith. The said application was not taken on record by the Authority. It is the case of the petitioners that the revision applications were heard by the Authority but no order was pronounced. 2.5 In the meantime. on 03.11.2008 the Election Officer - respondent No.5 herein published a public notice qua the election programme for the election of the Executive Committee of the respondent No. 6 Union. Being aggrieved by the saili action of the respondent No. 5 and the inaction on the part of respondent No.2, the present petition was preferred. 2.6 Thereafter, during the pendency of the present petition, the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture and Co-operative Department vide order dated 12.11.2008 rejected the Revision Applications No. 186 and 189 of 2008 filed by the present petitioners. Therefore the petition was amended pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 17.11.2008 by way of which the petitioners challenged the impugned order dated 12.11.2008. 3. We have heard learned Counsel 21 appearing for the respective parties and perused the papers on record. 4. Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashish H. Shah and Mr. C.P Champaneri, learned Advocates for the petitioners strongly submitted that bye-law No. 35(1) of the respondent No.6 Union is contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. He 31 submitted that the area of operation of the respondent No. 6 Union is entire Banaskantha district and that the same is divided into constituencies consisting of different Talukas. He submitted that bye-law No. 35(1) of the respondent No. 6 Union provides unequal representation from the said constituencies. 4.1 Mr. Patel submitted that out of 21 total seats of the Managing Committee, 16 seats are to be filled in by way of elections from 10 constituencies. He submitted that bye-law No. 35(1) of the respondent No. 6 Union provides unequal representation from the said constituencies. 4.1 Mr. Patel submitted that out of 21 total seats of the Managing Committee, 16 seats are to be filled in by way of elections from 10 constituencies. The same is contrary to the provisions of Section 28 read with Rule 3A and 3(8) of the Rule's of 1982 and thus constituting 10 constituencies for 11 Talukas is contrary to law. In support of the said submission, Mr. Patel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Siddhpur Taluka Co-operative Purchase & Sales Union and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2002(2) GLR 1357 . 4.2 Mr. Patel has further contended that bye-law No. 35(1) of the respondent No.6 Union provides for 16 votes to every member in respect of 16 different constituencies and that by I virtue of the said byelaw, a member of Palanpur constituency would also vote for a candidate of Danta, Vadgam and other constituencies. The byelaws provide for cross constituency voting. The unequal voting rights have been conferred only with a view to create artificial majority in the election. He submitted that the same is in violation of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rameshchandra Ramanbhai Patel and Another v. Collector, Kheda and Others reported in 1979(20) GLR 191. 4.3 Mr. Patel has invited the attention of this Court to he table showing the number of members belonging to different constituencies recognized under the byelaws. The I same is reproduced hereunder :- Division Total members Representative to be elected Pa1anpur 182 3 Danta 75 1 Yadgam 119 2 Deesa 163 1 Dhancra 119 1 Deodar 110 1 Tharad 103 1 Yav 82 1 Kankrej 105 1 Radhanpur Santalpur 70 1 Total 1128 13 4.4 He submitted that though Palanpur Division has total number of 182 affiliated member cooperative societies, the member society has a right to elect 3 representatives from Palanpur constituency whereas in case of Deesa constituency there are 163 21 member affiliated cooperative societies and the members have a right to elect one representative. Similar is the case of Vadgam constituency where a total number of 119 affiliated member 25 societies have a right to elect two representatives whereas Dhanera constituency which has total number of ; 119 affiliated member cooperative societies has a right to elect only one representative. He submitted that therefore it is clear that bye-law No. 35( 1) does not provide equal I representation to all constituencies. 4.5 Mr. Patel has submitted that it can also be seen that in view of the above there is a disparity in each 'candidate representing the member societies which can be seen from the table given hereunder :- Division Total Representative Candidate representing members to be elected member society Palanpur 182 3 61 Danta 75 1 75 Yadgam 119 2 60 Deesa 163 1 163 Dhanera 119 1 119 Deodar 110 1 110 Tharad 103 1 103 Yav 82 1 82 Kankrej 105 1 105 Radhanpur Santalpur 70 1 70 Total 1128 13 - 4.6 He submitted that from the above table it is clear that there is a gross disproportion of representation Taluka wise ranging from 60 to 163 and therefore in view of the statutory provisions there should be 11 scats for each Taluka. 4.7 Mr. Patel also pointed out that on plain reading of Rule 3A(8) it is 10 clear that the total number of seats should be equal to the number of constituencies excluding the seats reserved under Section 74-B meaning thereby there is one seat for one constituency. In this context he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd v. Sabarkantha District Cooperative 211 Milk Producers I Union Ltd reported in 2004(1) GLR 310 wherein it is held that byelaws framed by the society cannot prevail over the provisions of the Act viz. Sections 74(B) & (C ) and the 25 Rules framed by the State Government. Against the said judgment an LP A was preferred being Letters Patent Appeal No.463 of 2003, which was withdrawn on 9th May 2003. 31 4.8 Mr. Patel has submitted that the division of wards must be done in such a way that the principle of one man one vote is not violated more particularly in view of the decision in the case of Rameshchandra (supra). Relevant paras read as under :-(21, 22, 23) "21. 31 4.8 Mr. Patel has submitted that the division of wards must be done in such a way that the principle of one man one vote is not violated more particularly in view of the decision in the case of Rameshchandra (supra). Relevant paras read as under :-(21, 22, 23) "21. In Harii Chaku v. Mamlatdar 41 Lalpur 15 G.L.R. 64, the Division Bench of this Court consisting of J.B. Mehta and S.H. Sheth, JJ. was concerned with the division of wards and distribution of seats at an election to a gram panchayat governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Pauchayats Act, 1961 and one of the questions was whether the recognized principle of one parson-one vote was violated by giving almost double weightage to the voters of one constituency, as compared to the voters of another constituency, thus denying equal treatment to all voters. J.B. Mehta, J. who spoke for the Division Bench referred to the abovementioned decision of Bhagwati. C.J. in Special Civil Application No. 465 of 1971 (Vaikunthbhai Bhupalbhai Shastri v. State of Gujarat) and observed that having regard to the II settled principle indicated in the said decision, which must be followed in any elective process, as far as possible, any deviation there from would not be justified as per the constitutional ; provision unless rationally justified. Reference was made to the decisions of the American Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims case (supra) and Hadley v. Junior College District case o (supra) in order to emphasize that even the United States some deviations from the equal population principk were held to be constitutionally permissible in principle so long as the divergences were based on legitimate considerations incidental to the effectuation lit a rational State policy. The possibility that viable local Governments may need many innovations, numerous combinations of old and new devices. great flexibility in municipal arrangements to meet changing urban conditions was accepted even in that country where it was found that there was nothing in the Constitution to prevent experimentation. Having regard to these decisions, the Division Bench then proceeded to take into account various factors such as geographical situation, historical facts, inherent dissimilarities in the village which constituted election constituencies, etc. and observed that Article 14 did not embrace the wide due process guarantee of the American Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Having regard to these decisions, the Division Bench then proceeded to take into account various factors such as geographical situation, historical facts, inherent dissimilarities in the village which constituted election constituencies, etc. and observed that Article 14 did not embrace the wide due process guarantee of the American Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, so far as Article 14 was concerned, historical background of inherent dissimilarities would surely be the relevant factor. If deviation from the one man-one vote rule has got to be made for the purpose 21 of giving effective representation to a smaller component village unit, when such unit is joined with another larger unit and the deviation is justified so as to ensure co-operation between these unequal units, such deviation would really make effective the constitutional guarantee of equal voting power, as otherwise voice of such small components would not be likely to be felt in the larger whole. Broadly on the basis of this reasoning the deviation from the rule was justified in the facts and circumstances of the said case. 22. These two decisions of our Court show beyond doubt that the one man-one vote rule attracted to the elective process in our country as well and that it has its play in election of 41 local Government bodies. The decisions also show that any deviation from the said rule must be justified on rational grounds, even if it is assumed that the rule is not founded on an abstract mathematical or algebric formula. Our Constitution itself pern1.its such a deviation in the case of representation to weaker Sections. Harji's ease (supra) illustrates as to what would constitute a justice able I cause for deviation from such rule. As to whit extent a departure from the said rule could be permitted must in the ultimate analysis depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We do not wish to express, in the present case, an opinion on these matters and say as to what factors could be legitimately taken into account for the purpose of justifying the dilution of the said rule in a given case, since that question does not directly arise before us. 23. We do not wish to express, in the present case, an opinion on these matters and say as to what factors could be legitimately taken into account for the purpose of justifying the dilution of the said rule in a given case, since that question does not directly arise before us. 23. Apart from the one man-one vote rule receiving recognition at the ; hands of Courts, so far as our country is concerned, the principle has been enshrined even in the Constitution in the matter of election to the Parliament and State Legislatures. Article 81 (1) having provided for the composition of the I-louse of the People by not more than five hundred and twenty-five members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the States and not more than twenty members to represent the Union territories, chosen in such manner as Parliament may by law provide, proceeds to lay down in Article 81 (2) that each State shall be I allotted a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States and that each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of scats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State. Similar provision is to be found in Article 170 in relation to composition l' of the Legislative Assemblies and the principle governing the division of each State into territorial constituencies. The Constitution, of course, recognizes the deviation from the aforesaid principle 1 in Articles 330 to 333 and provides for reservation of scats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and representation to the Anglo-Indian community in the Union and State 2' Legislatures. But apart from this, the basic scheme of the Constitution with regard to election to the union and State Legislatures is to accept the concept of one man-one vote, la our own State, two legislations, which are in primateria, also make similar provision, one by express enactment and the other by necessary implication. But apart from this, the basic scheme of the Constitution with regard to election to the union and State Legislatures is to accept the concept of one man-one vote, la our own State, two legislations, which are in primateria, also make similar provision, one by express enactment and the other by necessary implication. Sub-Sections (1) to (4) of Section 20 of the Gujarat 31 Panchayats Act, 1961, which provide for electoral divisions for the purposes of elections of members to a gram, nagar, taluka and district panchayats, as the case may be, in terms provide that the divisions shall be made in such manner that as far as practicable, the population of all wards or, as the case may be, all territorial constituencies is the same and one member is elected 41 from each ward or constituency, 3S the case may be. So far as the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court, in its decision in Special Civil Application No. 46 of 1971 ; (supra) read the same principle into Section 452-A(1) by process of interpretation." , 5. Mr. K.S. Nanavati. learned II Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.K. Nanavati for Nanavati Associates for the respondent No. 6 Union has supported the amendment in the byelaw No. 35(1). He submitted that the s bye-laws of the milk union contemplate one constituency. The 16 members of the Managing Committee out of total 21 are elected by all the members of the milk union casting their votes. The I) entire area under bye-law 3 of the milk union is treated as one constituency and irrespective of whether a candidate has filed his nomination from any of the divisions, the vote is cast in favour of such candidate by all the members of the milk union and thus there is no conflict with Rule 3A(8) of the Rules. He submitted that there are no division wise elections and all the voters cast their vote for all the members who are to be elected. 5.1 Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the principle 'one member one vote would not be applicable to federal society. He submitted that Section 28 read with Rule 43 together makes this clear. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the notification dated ) 04.07.1973 exempting the federal societies from the operation of Section 28(1). 5.1 Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the principle 'one member one vote would not be applicable to federal society. He submitted that Section 28 read with Rule 43 together makes this clear. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the notification dated ) 04.07.1973 exempting the federal societies from the operation of Section 28(1). He submitted that it is the statutory notification which excludes the federal societies from operation of Section 28 which deals with right to vote and that neither Chapter 11A nor the 1982 election rule deal with the 5 right to vote. Under the scheme of the Act and Rules framed there under right to vote is conferred and governed by the byelaws and that it is not an inviolable rule that 'one member one vote' should invariable apply to all societies. Section 28 only contemplates 'one vote per member' for voting on issues concerning affairs of the society. 5.2 Mr. Nanavati further submitted that in most of the District Milk Cooperative Unions the system prevailing is that the entire area of operation• of the District Union is 21 treated as one constituency and all the members voting at the Election of the Executive Committee vote not only for candidates from their division but all the remaining division to elect the total number of elected members of Executive Committee. 5.3 Mr. Nanavati also submitted that the allocation of seats to different 31 divisions is not done on geographical basis but the guiding factors have been the member societies functioning in the area and procurement of milk from the respective areas. Giving same number 3 of seats to different divisions would have resulted in inequality because a smallest division contributing less milk would have equal weight age in the matter of administration of the affairs 4 of the district union. 5.4 In support of his submission, Mr. Nanavati has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Pankajsinh Waghela v. State Election Commission through State Election Commissioner and Others reported in 2010(3) GLH 523 and submitted that in a democratic set-up 'one man one vote' principle is being implemented in I different fashion to suit different requirements and that 'one man one vote' principle cannot be seen superficially but it has different manifestations. He submitted that in view of the above the byelaws are valid and are required to be accepted and this Court may not interfere in the same. 6. M.1-. P. K. Jani, learned Govt. Pleader assisted by Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned AGP appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 contended that the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) rejected the revision applications on the ground 5 that the applications were filed after a period of two years and that too only when the elections were near. He submitted that once the election process was started the revisional Authority could not have interfered with the same and therefore the Authority rightly rejected the applications. 6.1 Mr. Jani submitted that in view 5 of Rule 18(3) and 19(3) of the Specif ed Societies Act it is clear that he constituencies is for each Taluka. Strong reliance is placed on Form II and III wherein it is mentioned that the II candidate and the proposer shall be from the very same constituency and submitted that for each constituency voter list is separate. 6.2 Mr. Jani submitted that considering the provisions of the Act more particularly Section 74, the 5 byelaws should be consistent with Section 74 which envisages one seat reserved for SC/ST candidates and one seat for marginal farmers, if there is an order in that behalf by the Government, II and reservation of seats for women as per Section 74B of the Act. 6.3 Mr. Jani submitted that on 6th July 2011 the Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued instructions to all the District Registrars, Cooperative Societies in the State of Gujarat and copies of the same were forwarded to all the Collectors of the State. By 21 communication dated 6th July 2011 the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, after referring to Rule 3 of the Gujarat Specified Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 has observed 2 that there has been disproportionate representation of the elected members vis-a-vis the number of votes and constituencies. The members are elected either on District base or Taluka 1 base in a specified cooperative society. However, the constituency is of the entire district. The members are elected either on District base or Taluka 1 base in a specified cooperative society. However, the constituency is of the entire district. He submitted that it was found that such provisions, as contained in the byelaws of the Specified Cooperative Societies are not consistent with the provisions of Rule 3A and 3(8) of the Rules of 1982 and it is because of such inconsistency there is no proper allocation of the voters and the 41 candidates who get elected. He submitted that in view of the same, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, gave instructions, as stated hereinabove, to all the District Registrars to see that in every specific cooperative society constituency and the Members of the Managing Committees seats should be in consistence with the provisions of Rule 3A and 3(8) of the Rules of 1982. Accordingly he has directed that all I Specified Cooperative Societies should bring their byelaws inconsistence with the scheme of Rule 3A and 3(8) of the Rules of 1982 and all the cooperative societies be given instructions to make ; appropriate amendments in their byelaws so as to bring the same in conformity with the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, the stand of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, is that the I constituencies should be in accordance with Rules 3A and 3(8) of the Rules of 1982 and there should not be disproportionate representation of the candidates from constituency to another. 7. Mr. K.M Patel in rejoinder has pointed out that from the results which are produced on record the pernicious effect is clear that in election of 2008 the candidate from Kankrej constituency is getting 57 votes against 43 secured by the returned candidates in his constituency, but in view of byelaws allowing 16 votes by all the members the candidate is lost in the constituency pursuant to the dragon rule of allowing 16 votes. Similarly in case of Deodar candidate has got 72 votes against 33 cast in favour of returned candidate even then he has lost in view of the majority votes voted in other constituencies. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Para 8.3 of the decision in the case of Pankajsinh Waghela (supra) relied upon by Mr. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the respondent No.6. 8. Before we proceed further we may examine certain provisions of the law. 9. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Para 8.3 of the decision in the case of Pankajsinh Waghela (supra) relied upon by Mr. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the respondent No.6. 8. Before we proceed further we may examine certain provisions of the law. 9. Bye-law No.6 of the respondent No.6 Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) provides for membership. Bye-law No.6-A[1] provides that any 1 cooperative society registered in the Banaskantha District can become member of the respondent Union. Byelaw No.6-A[2] provides that any individual who is a supplier, contractor 21 or agent can become nominal member of the respondent-Union. However, it is required to be noted that the nominal member has no right to vote or participate in the administration of the respondent Union. The Bye-law No.35 provides for the election of the Executive Committee of the respondent Union. 10. Certain factual aspects are also not in dispute. The respondent Union is a specified society as per Section. 74-C of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (the Act) and election of members of the committees and office bearers is u governed by Chapter XI-A of the Act and Rules called the Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1982 (Rules of 1982). The area of operation of the 5 respondent Union is Banaskantha District. As on date there are 1128 primary Level and milk producers societies who are members of the respondent Union. As stated, the area a of operation of the respondent Union is entire Banaskantha District. The area of operation of the Union is divided into constituencies consisting of different Talukas. The number of members belonging to different constituencies recognized under the bye-laws are as under :- Division Total Representative/s members to be elected Pa1anpur 182 3 Danta 75 1 Yadgam 119 2 Deesa 163 1 Dhanera 119 1 Deodar 110 1 Tharad 103 1 Yav 82 1 Kankrej 105 1 Radhanpur Santa1pur 70 1 Total 1128 13 10.1 The main contention is that the bye-law No. 35[1] of the respondent Union provides unequal representation from the aforesaid constituencies because of the unequal number of representative to be elected in each division as under :- Division Total Representative Candidate. members to be elected representing member society Palanpur 182 3 61 Danta 75 1 75 Yadgam 119 2 60 Deesa 163 1 163 Dhanera 119 1 119 Deodar 110 1 110 Tharad 103 1 103 Yav 82 1 82 Kankrej 105 1 105 Radhanpur Santalpur 70 1 70 Total 1128 13 - 10.2 Before proceeding further it is required to also peruse Rule 3-A[8] of the Rules of 1982. The said rules read as under :- "3-A 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. xxx xxx xxx [8] Where the area of operation of a 4 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." 10.3 Section 74-B pertains to reservation of seats on committees of certain societies, for Scheduled Casts and Tribes and small and marginal farmers. 11. Thus, the aforesaid rule provides that the total number of seats excluding the reserved seats reserved for SCIST and marginal farmers as per Section 74B should be equal to the total number of constituencies, meaning thereby there has to be one sea for one constituency. 12. As pointed out hereinabove, in the case of Palanpur Division, it has total number of 182 affiliated member cooperative societies and the member society has right to elect representatives from the said constituency. In the case of Deesa constituency, there are 163 member affiliated cooperative societies and the members have a right to elect only one representative. Similar is the case in the case of Vadgam constituency where the total number of 119 affiliated members societies have right to elect two representatives. In the case of Dhanera constituency there are 119 affiliated member cooperatives, but they have right to elect only one representative. In view of this it is clear that bye-law No.35[l] of the respondent Union does not provide equal representation to all the constituencies. In the case of Dhanera constituency there are 119 affiliated member cooperatives, but they have right to elect only one representative. In view of this it is clear that bye-law No.35[l] of the respondent Union does not provide equal representation to all the constituencies. It admittedly gives discriminatory treatment inasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 society which falls in Deodar constituency has a right to elect one representative, whereas the societies falling in Palanpur constituencies have a right to elect three representatives. Therefore we have no doubt in holding that the byelaw No. 35[1] of the respondent Union is contrary to Rule 3-A[8] of the Rules of 1982 which provides that the total number of seats excluding the reserved seats should be equal to the total number of constituencies, meaning thereby there has to be one seat for one constituency. It is required to be noted that in the case of Pal an pur constituency the bye-law No.35[1] of the Union provides for election of three representatives which is contrary to the aforesaid Rule 3-A[8]. 13. This Court in the case of Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited v. Sabarkantha District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited, reported in 2004(1) GLR 310 has held that bye-law famed by the society cannot prevail over the provisions of the Act viz. Sections 74-B and 74-C and the Rules framed by the State Government. This Court had interpreted Rule 3-A[8] in para 9 of the said judgment and held as under :- "9. The aforesaid takes me to ; examine the provisions of other part of Bye-law 35(1) so far as it relates to giving representation to more than one person for each constituency. The rule 3A(8) which is relevant reads as J under :- "3A(8) Where the area of operation of a Society in more than one village, the number of constituencies will be ; equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under sub Sec. (1) of Sec.74-B". Plain and simple reading of sub rule [8] of Rule 3A shows that the number of constituencies has to be equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 74B. Section 74B s provides for co-option of reserved category which is not relevant in the present group of petitions. Plain and simple reading of sub rule [8] of Rule 3A shows that the number of constituencies has to be equal to the total number of seats excluding two seats reserved under sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 74B. Section 74B s provides for co-option of reserved category which is not relevant in the present group of petitions. However, the language used in sub-rule (8) of Rule 3A makes it clear that as a consequence of sub-rule (8) there will be one seat for one constituency. If one constituency provides for more than one seat the same would not be in conformity with the provisions of sub-rule (8). Similarly, if for each constituency the seat is provided for not more than one it may be in conformity 5 with sub-rule (8) of Rule 3A." 14. Thus, looking to the facts on hand. it is apparent that when the statutory rules provide that the seat II shall not be more than one for each constituency, the Bye-law would not be in conformity and would stand in contravention to sub-rule (8) of Rule 3A and hence such bye-laws cannot be maintained nor can be allowed to be operated. As held in the aforesaid decision the statutory rules shall march over operation of bye-laws and no byelaw can be allowed to be maintained on the face of statutory rules. 15. Mr. K. S. Nanavati has relied upon a decision in the case of Shri Sodvadar Seva Sahkari mandali Limited v. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 2010(3) GLH 117 wherein it is held that rule contemplates and envisages that in case of specified society, there may be more than one 3( seat for one constituency. However, the said Judgment itself, in paras 10 and 11 shows that the representation is not allotted on territorial basis, but it is allotted on the basis of objects and activities of the member societies. In the present case it is on territorial basis and therefore the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, paras 10, 17, 18 & 18.1 of the aforesaid decision shall be relevant and the same are produced hereunder :- "10. In the present case it is on territorial basis and therefore the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, paras 10, 17, 18 & 18.1 of the aforesaid decision shall be relevant and the same are produced hereunder :- "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/ I categories such as "Agricultural Credit Multipurpose Service and Farming Cooperative Societies and Nonagricultural Credit Society and other societies which provides loans to their ; members" and sale and purchase union as well as marketing and processing societies etc. 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 I 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. 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. 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 311 members constitute a homogenous group, however in the specified societies where the members comprise a homogenous 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. " 15.1 Mr. Nanavati has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pankajsinh Waghela (supra). The said decision will not be applicable 5 on the facts of the present case in view of the fact that Rule 4 as referred in para 8.3 of the said judgment is very clear and the same reads as under :- "8.3 In exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section(1) of Section 456 read with Section 5 of the BPMC Act, the State has framed the Delimitation Rules of 1994. Rule 2 of the Delimitation Rules of 1994 provides for constitution of wards. Rule 2 reads as follows :- "2. The Wards shall be constituted !II in such a manner that the population in all the wards is, as far as practicable, equal, in particular, the population of a ward shall not vary by more than ten percent from the average wards ~s population of the city." Rule 4 of the Delimitation Rules of 1994 reads as follows :- "4. All Wards shall be multimember wards with three councillors to be elected from each ward." 15.2 In the present case there are no such statutory rules and therefore the aforesaid decision shall not be applicable on the peculiar facts of the present case. 16. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that in case of Radhanpur and Santalpur Divisions, they fall in the little Ran of Kutch and therefore have the least number of members. They have 70 members put together while Thara and Yav Divisions have about 185 members, with Yav Division having only 82 members. 16. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that in case of Radhanpur and Santalpur Divisions, they fall in the little Ran of Kutch and therefore have the least number of members. They have 70 members put together while Thara and Yav Divisions have about 185 members, with Yav Division having only 82 members. it was submitted that the purpose behind granting more representative capacity to those societies having more members is so that it is proportionate to the I amount of milk produced and supplied to the respondent Union. This contention cannot be accepted because it is in contravention to sub-rule (8) of Rule 3A. Learned Advocates for the respondents are not in a position to point out anything from the record justifying more number of representatives In Palanpur and Vadgam Taluka in spite of the fact that in other constituencies there are more number of members. Therefore we accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. 16.1 In this context the decision cited by learned Advocate for the petitioners in the case of Sidhpur Taluka Co-operative Purchase and Sales Union (supra) shall be relevant.." Para 15 of the said decision reads as under:- "15. Having thus briefly surveyed the scheme of the Act on the provisions 3 of the Act and the Rules mentioned above, what we discover is that the structure of the cooperative societies from State level down to Taluka level is based on the revenue areas. A District and Taluka cooperative society is required to have its membership within the District and Taluka. Elections to societies, federal or otherwise, are required to be conducted by the District Collector on the basis of the revenue areas of Taluka or District concerned. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that revenue area of Taluka or District has no relationship with the n holding of elections to cooperative society of District or Taluka level. It is true that in the Gujarat Act, there are no parallel provisions as to be found in Section 18C of the Maharashtra Act to 5 take care of the change in structure of cooperative societies in the event of change of area of Taluka or District. But for that reason alone, it cannot be held that under the Gujarat Act and the o Rules framed there under. But for that reason alone, it cannot be held that under the Gujarat Act and the o Rules framed there under. regardless of the change of the area of Taluka or District and without amending its byelaws, a cooperatiye society of primary level can send its members for vote or 5 election to a federal society at Taluka level when such societies do not fall within the revenue area of that Taluka. In the absence of a provision analogous to Section 18C of the Maharashtra Act to enable its members to exercise right of vote and contest from primary societies to federal society. it is incumbent on the society to amend its bye-laws to restrict its election to the area of Taluka or District in accordance with Section 13 of the Act. the Registrar can also invoke its Authority for effecting corresponding change in the bye-laws under Section 14 of the Act to restrict election to members within the Taluka and District. There is great force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the right of a member to vote or contest as member of a primary society for election to federal society is to be regulated by the concerned bye-laws of the federal society and if the bye-laws restrict the membership to affiliated societies which fall within the Taluka, societies which fall outside the Taluka cannot claim right of vote and contest through their members or delegates. In this respect bye-law. No. 7(1) of Siddhpur Taluka Federal Cooperative Society and Patan Taluka Federal Cooperative Society are required to be seen, the copies of which were passed on to us in the course of hearing. Byelaw No. 7(1) in both the Taluka level federal societies at Patan and Siddhpur prescribe eligibility qualification for a member to be an individual or society existing and operating within the Taluka concerned. If that is the position of the bye-law, any member society or indi vidual, who is not within the Taluka, merely by continuance of its membership on the register with primary society can claim no right to participate in election to the federal societies." 17. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that unequal treatment is given in constituting the constituencies inasmuch as for 11-' Talukas only 10 constituencies. In this connection it is apparent from the record that an amendment was carried out being bye-law No.35[1]. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that unequal treatment is given in constituting the constituencies inasmuch as for 11-' Talukas only 10 constituencies. In this connection it is apparent from the record that an amendment was carried out being bye-law No.35[1]. By the aforesaid amendment, the constituencies were re-demarcated. From the record it is evident that earlier Yav and Tharad constituencies were single constituency having one scat, whereas after the amendment, they were segregated and Tharad and 'yav Constituencies were made separate constituencies with one seat each. However, the amendment did not provide for similar treatment in case of Radhanpur and Santalpur constituencies. There is also no dispute that the said constituency having two talukas viz. Radhanpur and Santalpur was not given similar treatment to that of Tharad and Yav constituencies and ; even after amended bye-law, the constituencies of Radhanpur and Santalpur has only one seat which provides that in case of Pal an pur constituency the member affiliated I societies can elect three representatives. There is no reason forthcoming from the record as to why Radhanpur and Santalpur were not segregated when Tharad and Yav constituencies were; segregated. This would certainly create an anomalous situation and also can cause creation of artificial majority. Since in all there are 11 Talukas, there should be 11 constituencies considering lone constituency for each Taluka, especially when Tharad and Yav constituencies were segregated and made different constituencies. 17.1 On the overall facts it is apparent that the manner in which the divisions are made raises doubt and it also creates inequality among the members and also lopsided distribution of votes inasmuch as one representative of the society is representing 60 societies whereas the other representative is representing 163 societies. It is to be noted that as per the statutory provision the requirement is to have one seat as per revenue society for the Taluka. In this case also learned Advocates for the respondents are not in a position to defend this contention effectively and we have no hesitation to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 17.2 The decision of this Court in the case of Rameshchandra (supra) more particularly paras 15, 16 & 17 shall be relevant to the facts of the present case which read as under :- "15. 17.2 The decision of this Court in the case of Rameshchandra (supra) more particularly paras 15, 16 & 17 shall be relevant to the facts of the present case which read as under :- "15. The petitioners urged that it would be necessary on the part of the State Government, as a condition 21 precedent to the holding of every general election of councillors of a municipal borough, to divide the municipal borough into wards and to determine the number of wards and the number of members to be elected from each ward in consultation with the municipality (if already constituted) by an order made under Sub-Section (1) and duly published. 31 Such determination, however, is not necessarily final, for, under Sub-Section (2), the State Government has the Authority, at any time before the date for entertaining the nominations of candidates for such election is duly notified by the Collector under Rule 7, to alter, for reasons to be recorded in writing, (a) the limits of any ward or (b) the number of councillors to be 4 elected from any ward, as determined by it under Sub-Section (1). The mainstay of the submission was that every election is a fresh event, that it is the duty of the competent Authority to ensure that it is held fairly, properly and bona fide, that this can' be done only if the entire process, of election commencing from delimitation of wards and allocation of seats therein is gone through every time, because then only will the rule of 'One nun-one vote' operate evenly at every general election and that there is nothing either in the general law relating to election or in the scheme of the Act or the ; context and collocation of the Section under consideration which goes, either expressly or impliedly, against such requirement. On a conjoint reading of Sub-Sections (1) and (2), contended the petitioners, the duty to delimit wards and allocate seats in each of such wards at every general election, bearing in mind the change in the number of voters or the population of ; each ward, could be clearly spelt out, with the power coupled with duty superadded even to alter such determination in case of necessity before the date for entertaining the nominations of candidates is notified by the Collector, subject to the condition of prior consultation with the municipality and recording of reasons. Such a construction, according to the petitioners, was not only the only construction possible but it would also advance the purpose and object of the enactment by ensuring fair election and being the Section o under consideration in line with the provisions other statutes In pari materia dealing with election to other local Authorities. 16. The State Government urged that the duty to divide the municipal borough into wards and to determine the number of wards and the number of members to be elected from each ward cast upon it under Sub-Section (1) is to be performed once and for all at the time of the holding of the first general election of the councillors of the Municipality under the Act and that thereafter it was not required, either expressly or by necessary implication, to perform such duty at every general election. In case it became necessary to alter the limits of any ward or, as the case may be, the number of councillors to be elected from any ward determined once and for all under Sub-Section (1), 21 it had ample power under Sub-Section (2) make such alteration, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in consultation with the municipality (if already constituted) at any time before the 25 Collector notified under Rule 7 the date for entertaining this nominations of candidates for the general election. In support of this construction, it was strenuously contended on behalf of the 31 State Government that an intolerable burden would be placed upon it if it were required to act under Sub-Section (I) at the time of every general election of a municipality, especially when it had the necessary corrective power under Sub-Section (2) to ensure fair election by alteration of limits of wards or fresh allocation of seats amongst such wards, in case such step was warranted by the circumstances or demanded by the occasion. It was also urged that since the State Government has all throughout acted under the belief that it had to exercise its power under Sub-Section (1) once and for all at the time of the first general election, it has not acted there under at the time ,of the subsequent elections of different municipalities and that if the view canvassed on behalf of the petitioners were to be accepted, it might result in a serious crisis possibly invalidating all those elections and holding up the ensuing election not only of the Anand municipality but also of two other municipalities, namely, Petlad and Bombay, the general elections of which are due to take place on February 5, 1978. 17. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 urged the need to adopt a construction which stood midway between the extreme posture adopted by the petitioners on the one hand and the State Government; on the other. They urged that the power under Sub-Section (1) to delimit wards and allocate scats in each ward must be exercised by the State Government at the first general election after every new census and that for the mid-census general election, if any, the State Government was under no duty to initiate any action under Sub-Section (1). Any corrective measure in the direction of delimitation of wards a ld allocation of seats required to be taken in the case of mid-census general election could be taken under Sub-Section (2) and in that manner the fairness of such mid-census election could well be ensured. In support of this construction, the said respondents heavily relied upon the fact that even assuming that 'one man-one vote' requirement of fair election is present in the case of municipal general election and that, therefore, each ward must be so constituted and the number of seats therein must be so allocated that the representation of each ward in the municipality was proportionate, as nearly as possible, to its population, the necessity to freshly delimit wards and reallocate seats in each ward would arise only at the first general election to be held after the census in as much as it is only then that the change, if any, in population wardwise would become autnentically known. The said respondents urged that Sevtions 6 and 7 must be read as a part of a single scheme and both in the matter of the determination of the number of seats and the delimitation of wards and the allocation of seats in each ward, the population to be taken into account must be the population as ascertained at the last preceding census. In the mid-census election, therefore, any actual change in the population could not be allowed to be reflected In the constitution of wards or allocation of seats and only marginal changes in that behalf might have to be made under special circumstances in order to ensure fair election, which power the State Government already had under Sub- 3 Section (2)." 18. The last contention is that in the bye-law it is provided that every member affiliated society of the respondent Union has a right to vote for electing 16 representatives, meaning thereby the member affiliated society has to cast 16 votes for electing 16 representatives in 10 constituencies. To illustrate, in Yav constituency there are 82 member affiliated societies and all the 82 members affiliated societies vote for 16 representatives in' 10 different constituencies for election to the respondent Union. If there are 2 to 3 different representatives called by different member affiliated societies then in the elections the votes are to be counted from all 1128 members of Banaskantha District and not of that 5 particular constituency. This would definitely impact the result of election and even if one of the representatives of a member affiliated society has majority of votes in that particular constituency, there are chances that the said representative may not be elected for the reason that he would have to get majority of votes from all the constituencies i.e. from the total 1128 member affiliated societies. This would have artificial impacting result of the election inasmuch as the area where there are maximum number of affiliated societies would impact result of the constituency where there are less number of member affiliated societies meaning thereby this would give advantage to the society of larger constituency which would have more voting power than the member affiliated societies in similar constituencies. This is demonstrated by the result of the Deodar and Kankrej constituencies in the election of 2008 where despite securing more votes from the members of all the constituencies the candidate is lost in view of the fact that he has secured less votes than the returned candidate on the basis of votes cast by all the members from 10 different constituencies. Apart from that 5 or 6 constituencies having large number of members can dominate other constituencies which is not the democratic principle. 19. In this connection we are required to refer to Section 28 of the Cooperative Societies Act which reads as under :- "28. Voting powers of members - 1; (1) No member of any society shall have more than one vote in its affairs :- Provided that in the case of an equality of votes the Chairman shall have a casting vote. (2) Where a share of a society IS held jointly by more than one person, each such person shall have, in the absence of preceding person or persons, a right to vote :- Provided that such person is present and is not a minor :- Provided further that where the manner of voting is by ballot, all the joint holders of the share may appoint one of them to vote on their behalf in the affairs of the society. (3) A society which has invested any part of its funds in the shares of another society, may appoint one of its members to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that other society, and accordingly such member shall have the right to vote on behalf of the first society :- Provided that the first society shall not appoint any of its members who is also its paid employee. (4) A company or any other body corporate constituted under any law for the time being in force which has invested any part of its funds in the shares of a society may appoint anyone of its directors or officers to vote on its behalf in the affairs of such society; and accordingly such director or officer shall have the right to vote on behalf of the company or the body corporate, as the case may be. (5) Where a firm has invested any part of its funds in the shares of a society, anyone of its partners appointed by the firm shall be entitled to vote in the affairs of the society on behalf of the firm. (6) A local Authority or public trust which has invested any part of its funds I in the shares of a society may appoint any of its members or trustees to vote on its behalf in the affairs of that society: and accordingly, such person shall have the right to vote on behalf of the local Authority or the public trust, as the case may be. (7) No nominal or sympathizer member shall have the right to vote and no such member shall be eligible to be a member of a committee or for appointment as a representative of the society on any other society. (8) The voting rights of individual members of a federal society shall be such as may be regulated by the rules 5 and by the bye-laws of the society." 20. A bare reading of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that each member will have only one vote. The sub- 111 Section (1) specifies that whatever may be the type of the society, whether it is registered with or without limited liability, whatever may be the value of interest or number of shares held by a member, he shall have only one vote in the affairs of the society. 21. The provision contained in the amended Byelaw No.35(1) giving right of "one member sixteen votes" is not consistent with the scheme of constituency-wise representation. If there are electoral divisions called constituencies, voting right of the member can only be with reference to the candidate to be elected from that constituency and not in respect of other constituency to which he does not belong. The provision giving right ob voting beyond one's own constituency is repugnant to the scheme of constituency-wise representation. 22. At this stage we may also refer to Rules 18 and 19 of The Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules 1982 which pertain to nomination of clI1didates and presentation of nomination paper and requirements for valid nominations. The provision giving right ob voting beyond one's own constituency is repugnant to the scheme of constituency-wise representation. 22. At this stage we may also refer to Rules 18 and 19 of The Gujarat Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules 1982 which pertain to nomination of clI1didates and presentation of nomination paper and requirements for valid nominations. A conjoint reading of Section 28 of the Act and Rules 18 and 19 of the said Rules makes it clear that if a candidate is to be from the same constituency the voter cannot be allowed to vote in any other constituency. In fact there are no rules allowing any voter to cast his vote in any other constituency other than his. It is also a common sense that a voter 'cannot go and vote in other constituencies. We are therefore of the view that allowing 16 votes to caste is contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore the stipulation of casting 16 votes by each member is illegal and arbitrary and therefore we accept this contention also of the petitioners. 23. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 that for the purposes of voting, the entire district will comprise one constituency cannot be accepted. In the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 conceded that voters' lists are prepared constituency-wise. The election results of 2008 election on record of the case show that results were declared constituency-wise. If I what the learned Counsel contends is correct, then the whole district will become one constituency and as per Rue 3-A (8) there can be one seat and not 16 seats as provided in the byelaw ; 35(1). The argument has, therefore, no force and cannot be accepted. 24. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.6 has also relied upon Rule 43 of the Rules of 1982. Rule of harmonious construction requires that head on collusion between two provisions of the Act should be avoided so as to give effect to both the provisions. Keeping in view this principle the provision contained in Rule 3-A (8) cannot be nullified on the s basis of provisions of Rule 43. In any case Rule 43 is wrongly interpreted by the learned Counsel for the general candidate, whereas it is for women and reserved category as per the provisions 10 of Section 74-B. 25. Keeping in view this principle the provision contained in Rule 3-A (8) cannot be nullified on the s basis of provisions of Rule 43. In any case Rule 43 is wrongly interpreted by the learned Counsel for the general candidate, whereas it is for women and reserved category as per the provisions 10 of Section 74-B. 25. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 relied on a decision in the case of Shri Sodvadar Sewa Sahakri Mandali Limited (supra) wherein the byelaw providing for more than one vote to one member was upheld. However, that was the case in which the members of the petitioner society compromised of various classes such as Agricultural Credit Multi Purpose Society, Agricultural Credit Society, Sales & Purchase Unions and other Societies dispensing loans and credits and with a view to give them representation separate representation was provided in the byelaw. In the said judgment, earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Antakampa Milk 31 Producers Cooperative Society Limited (supra) has been referred and it is observed that the principle laid down in Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited's case is applicable to societies where the members constitute homogenous group and not heterogeneous group. In the present case the members of respondent No. 6 society are primary level 41 cooperative milk societies and they comprise of homogenous group. In view of this fact, the judgement in Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited (supra) would govern the present case. As held In Antakampa Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited case, the number of constituencies and number of seats (excluding the seats reserved as per Section 74B have to be equal in I number. However, in the present case constituencies are 10 and seats allotted are 16 which is not in conformity with Rule 3A (8) and the said byelaw therefore cannot be allowed to operate. 26. Even according to the submission of Mr. P. K. Jani the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, gave instructions to all the District Registrars ) to see that in every Specific Cooperative Society Constituency and the members of the Managing Committee seats should be In consistence with the provisions of Rule ; 3(A) and 3(8) of the Rules of 1982. Therefore, the order of the Authority is contrary to the subsequent resolution of the Government. 27. Therefore, the order of the Authority is contrary to the subsequent resolution of the Government. 27. As regards 1973 exemption is concerned, it is not for all times to come and it will not apply after amendment in the Act in 1982 and the Rules of 1982. 28. We may also observe that while going through the bye-law, though not a subject matter of challenge, we find that there is no reservation provided therein. 29. In the premises aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12th November 2008 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Agriculture and Cooperation Department in Revision Application Nos. 186 and 189 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Bye-law N 0.35 [1] of the respondent No.6 Union is also quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 6 Union shall amend the bye-laws as per the statutory I provisions of the Act. and the Rules. While amending the bye-law the Registrar shall see that each Taluka gets equal representation and there will be reservation as per the provisions of 1 Section 74B of the Act for Scheduled Caste/tribe, small farmers (if there is an order of the Government) and for women candidates as per Section 74B of the Act. It is further held that the process of elections of Executive Committee of the respondent No. 6 Union shall be after the bye-laws are amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The aforesaid exercise of amendment of byelaws shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 30. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Misc. Civil Application shall not survive and is disposed of accordingly. 31. Mr. Nanavati requested that the present judgment may be stayed for some time. We are of the view that the 4 very existence the bye-laws is bad in law and illegal and therefore granting stay of this judgment will eventually lead to continuity of illegality. Therefore we reject the request made by learned Counsel. (UPY) (Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs)