Judgment : 1. These three Writ Petitions are filed questioning G.O.Rt.No.858, Agriculture and Co-Operation (COOP.V) Department, dated 19.06.2013, whereby the orders issued staying the Co-operative elections have been revoked. I have heard Sri G.M. Mohiuddin, learned counsel representing Sri Siva S.Lanka, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. After the election process was commenced in respect of the Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Societies in which the petitioners are interested, some of the petitioners and some other persons have approached respondent No.1 with representations to postpone elections purporting to apprehend law and order problems to arise if the elections were held. Readily obliging their requests, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.205, Agriculture and Co-Operation (COOP-V) Department, dated 28.01.2013, which is reproduced herein below : “1. Whereas the District Election Authority, Krishna District, has issued notification for conduct of elections to the Managing Committee of the Agiripalle Mandal, Krishna District, first read above. 2. And whereas while the election process is in progress, several representations have been received from various quarters that efforts are made by certain groups/party to intimidate the voters in the reference 2nd read above. 3. And whereas, an appeal has been preferred stating that the members whose names are deleted illegally and without notice as well as those whoa re not given membership and voting right even though eligible as such are agitated and are likely to create commotion and law and order situation and would affect peaceful and lawful conduct of elections and it is apprehended that the voters may cause possible obstruction to the conduct of free and fair poll. 4. The Government by virtue of powers conferred under Rule-22(C) (1)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1964, hereby order the postponement of elections to the Managing Committee of the Agiripalle Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society No.K.R.339, Agiripalli, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District, until further orders.” After the elections to all other Co-Operative Societies in the State were held, except where respondent No.2 or the Commissioner, Co-Operation have exercised their powers under Rule-22-C of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’) and postponed the elections, respondent No.1 appeared to have become wiser and issued G.O.Rt.No.858, Agriculture and Co-Operation (COOP-V) Department, dated 19.06.2013, revoking G.O.Rt.No.205, dated 28.01.2013. The said order is reproduced herein below : “1. The said order is reproduced herein below : “1. In the reference 1st read above, orders have been issued for postponement of elections to the certain PACS considering the sensitive situation prevailing then and considering that prima-facie there was intimidation of voters which might cause obstruction to the conduct of free and fair poll. 2. After issue of the above orders, several representations have been made to conduct elections to the postponed Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Societies. Government have carefully examined the matter and considering the present situation, have decided to cancel the orders issued postponing the elections and conduct of elections to the PACS where elections were postponed in certain Districts under Rule-22-C (1)(ii) of APCS Rules, 1964. 3. The Commissioner for Co-Operation and Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad, is requested to take further action in the matter.” Not pleased with this revocation, the petitioners approached this Court with the grievance, which, in my opinion, is wholly illusory, that respondent No.1 ought not to have revoked its earlier order. Sri G.M. Mohiuddin, learned counsel representing Sri Siva S.Lanka, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously argued that having been satisfied that law and order problem is likely to arise if the elections are held and stayed the elections, respondent No.1 ought not to have revoked its earlier order without even notice to the petitioners. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment, dated 26.04.2013, of a Division Bench of this Court in Katta Sivaiah Vs. Government of A.P., reptd by its Special Chief Secretary & others in Writ Appeal No.238 of 2013 and batch. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Rule-22-C of the Rules confers an extraordinary power on the Government or the Election authority to postpone the elections in the following one or more of the three circumstances : “(i) Break down of law and order affecting the peaceful and lawful conduct of elections. (ii) Any natural calamity that prevents the conduct of elections particularly, voters from participation in the election. (iii) Where there is reasonable apprehension that voters will not be allowed to vote frankly and freely.” Under sub-rule-(b) thereof, the election process shall be recommenced when the conditions become conducive for resuming the election process, by issue of an order by the authority that has postponed the election, from the stage from which it was obstructed or interrupted. (iii) Where there is reasonable apprehension that voters will not be allowed to vote frankly and freely.” Under sub-rule-(b) thereof, the election process shall be recommenced when the conditions become conducive for resuming the election process, by issue of an order by the authority that has postponed the election, from the stage from which it was obstructed or interrupted. Apropos the submission of the learned counsel that no notice was issued to the petitioners before revoking the order postponing the elections, in my view, the adversarial system requiring issue of notice to the petitioners before modifying or varying an order granted in their favour has no application to the decisions falling under Rule-22-C(1) of the Rules. From the plain language of Rule-22-C of the Rules, it is evident that it is the Government or the Election authority who has to assess the situation for postponement of the election. It is the satisfaction of these authorities which is relevant for postponement of the election. In my opinion, a third party has no right to insist on either postponement of the election or not to resume the election process after such postponement, even after the contingencies mentioned in sub-clauses-(i) to (iii) of Rule-22-C(1) of the Rules ceased to exist. In other words, it is the exclusive prerogative of the Government or the Election authority under Rule-22-C(1) of the Rules to take a decision for postponement and also for recommencement of election process based on the prevailing circumstances. At best, a person like the petitioners can only bring to the notice of the Government or the Election authority about the prevailing situation, on which, the latter may take an appropriate decision. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, on which the petitioners placed reliance, instead of helping them, cuts into their case. The Division Bench in the said judgment held in unequivocal terms that the election process cannot be postponed by exercise of power under Rule-22-C (1) of the Rules unless the prescribed authority is satisfied, on the basis of the material, that any of the contingencies stipulated in the said provision exist for postponement of the election. This is a converse situation where respondent No.1, being satisfied that the circumstances which existed for postponement of the elections no longer existed, revoked the earlier order passed by it in exercise of its power under Rule-22-C (1) of the Rules. This is a converse situation where respondent No.1, being satisfied that the circumstances which existed for postponement of the elections no longer existed, revoked the earlier order passed by it in exercise of its power under Rule-22-C (1) of the Rules. In the ultimate analysis, respondent No.1 has made an endeavour to restore the democratic process by directing resumption of election process which was stayed by it earlier. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not therefore entertain any plea by the writ petitioners or any other disgruntled persons against resumption of election process on the pretext of law and order problems. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petitions are wholly meritless and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petitions, W.P.M.Ps, if any, pending are dismissed as infructuous.