JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.23396 and 23588 of 2011 as the question involved in both the writ petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 23396 of 2011. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Jalandhar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”) is a cooperative society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The management of the cooperative societies is governed by the elected Managing Committee which has the term of 5 years. The Bank is a central society in which the primary societies are the members. The term of the Board of Directors of the Bank had expired in the month of May 2010. The election programme was prepared, approved by the competent authority and as per the programme, the members societies were required to submit their resolutions/proxies up to 26.07.2010 and the nomination papers were to be filed on 28.07.2010. The objections and scrutiny of the nomination papers were to be held on 29.07.2010 and unopposed candidates were to be declared elected on 29.07.2010 from 4:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. by the Returning Officer. For the purpose of election, the area of operation of the Bank was divided into 9 zones. The petitioner-Sukhjindra Society as well as the respondent no.7-Society were included in zone no.8. Both the petitioner and respondent no.7 were represented through their authorized representatives. The petitioner was declared elected unopposed by the Returning Officer on 29.07.2010 as Director from zone no.8. and sent the result to the Joint Registrar and the Bank. The election of the Bank was held by dividing the area of operation in 9 zones as Bye-law 30 was amended on 17.03.2009, otherwise earlier there used to be 15 zones. The said Bye-law 30 of the Bank was challenged by the member Society of the Bank by filing CWP No.10705 of 2010 in which the election of the Bank was stayed on 05.08.2010. However, the stay order was finally vacated on 15.11.2010, whereas the election result of the unopposed candidates of zone nos.1, 5, 6 and 8 was already declared on 29.07.2010. However, the stay order was finally vacated on 15.11.2010, whereas the election result of the unopposed candidates of zone nos.1, 5, 6 and 8 was already declared on 29.07.2010. After the vacation of stay order dated 05.08.2010, the Bank declared fresh election programme for the election of the remaining zone nos.2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 which was approved by the Competent Authority. The election process started from the stage where it was stopped i.e. polling of votes which was held on 22.12.2010. After the declaration of the result as per the fresh election programme, the Returning Officer was to prepare a consolidated list of elected candidates including those declared elected unopposed and communicate the names of persons elected, under his signatures, to the Registrar. Accordingly, the Returning Officer prepared the consolidated election result on 22.12.2010 after including the names of the candidates who were declared elected unopposed on 29.07.2010 and sent the same to the Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar and District Manager of the Bank. 3. Respondent no.7 challenged the election of the petitioner by way of election petition under Section 55/56 of the Act which was dismissed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar, on 08.08.2011 on the ground of being time barred. Respondent no.7 filed appeal under Section 68 of the Act which was allowed by the Additional Registrar (Credit), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, on 08.12.2011 and the case was remanded back to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar, to decide the issue of limitation afresh. Respondent no.7 filed a revision under Section 69 of the Act for setting aside the orders dated 08.08.2011 and 08.12.2011 which has been allowed on 09.12.2011 by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, by observing as under:- “4. I have carefully considered the arguments adduced by the counsels on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no.2 and gone through the facts, as on record carefully. It is found that the Additional Registrar (Credit) in his order of 08.12.2011 have concluded that the Joint Registrar, Jalandhar, has wrongly dismissed the election petition as time barred. He seems to be correct in this regard as section 26(1B) as incorporated in the Act in the year 1993 provides that the term of the office of a committee elected after amendment of the Punjab Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1993, shall be five years from the date of its election. He seems to be correct in this regard as section 26(1B) as incorporated in the Act in the year 1993 provides that the term of the office of a committee elected after amendment of the Punjab Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1993, shall be five years from the date of its election. In the present case, the result of election of the Board of Directors was notified on 22.12.2010. Therefore, the limitation should have been counted from this date and had that been done the petition before the Joint Registrar was well within the given period of 90 days. Thus the order of the Joint Registrar of 08.08.2011 is wrong and has therefore been rightly set aside.” 4. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the orders dated 08.12.2011 and 09.12.2011, inter alia, on the ground that limitation to file election petition as per Rule 12 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) is 90 days. It is also submitted that the period of 90 days is to be counted from the date when the petitioner was elected on 29.07.2010 and, thus, the election petition was clearly time barred. It is further submitted that such limitation cannot be condoned in any manner. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in [2010(3) Law Herald (P&H) 1918] : FAO No.5378 of 2009 titled as “Tarlochan Singh Vs. Kashmir Singh” decided on 11.05.2010. 5. In reply, counsel for the respondents have submitted that the period of limitation for the purpose of filing of election petition is to be counted in terms of Section 26(1B) of the Act which provides 5 years term to the office of the Committee which is duly constituted after the election. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the Board of Directors are elected. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the Board of Directors are elected. Since the area of operation of the Bank was divided into 9 zones, the Board of Directors were elected from different zones and out of 9 zones, candidates from zone nos.1, 5, 6 and 8 were declared elected unopposed on 29.07.2010, whereas the candidates from the remaining zone nos.2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 were elected on 22.12.2010 and the consolidated election result of the candidates declared elected unopposed and after contest was submitted by the Returning Officer to the Joint Registrar on 22.12.2010 in terms of Section 11 of the Act. The election petition was filed by respondent no.7 on 16.03.2011 to challenge the election of the petitioner who was declared elected unopposed on 29.07.2010. The petitioner is counting the limitation of 90 days w.e.f. 29.07.2010, whereas respondent no.7 is counting the period of 90 days from 22.12.2010 when the Returning Officer submitted consolidated list of the names of the Board of Directors elected either unopposed or after contest. 8. Insofar as the issue of period of limitation is concerned, it is 90 days and cannot be extended. 9. Counsel for respondent no.7 has fairly conceded that the period of 90 days for filing the election petition cannot be extended in any manner and has not tried to find fault with the law laid down in Tarlochan Singh’s case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner. 10. The only issue involved is, thus, about the date from which the limitation would start. 11. Before I proceed further, it would be relevant to refer to the following provisions of law which have been referred to by the petitioner as well as respondent no.7:- “Rule 12 of Appendix `C’ Part-I 12. General:- (1) The Registrar may issue such instructions as may be necessary for the purpose of drawing of election programme, filing of nomination papers, withdrawal of nomination papers, allotment o symbols, manner of voting, counting and other relevant matters to facilitate the holding of elections in respect of a Co-operative Society or class of Co-operative Societies. General:- (1) The Registrar may issue such instructions as may be necessary for the purpose of drawing of election programme, filing of nomination papers, withdrawal of nomination papers, allotment o symbols, manner of voting, counting and other relevant matters to facilitate the holding of elections in respect of a Co-operative Society or class of Co-operative Societies. (2) If any dispute arises in connection with the election of any officer of the Co-operative Society, it shall be referred within 90 days of the date of declaration of the result of such election of the Registrar in the same manner as provided in rule 51 of the Rules.” “26. Election and nomination of members of Committee:- (1) The members of the committee of a cooperative society shall be elected in the manner prescribed and no person shall be so elected unless he is a share holder of the society. (1A) The Committee of any co-operative society may subject to the approval of the Registrar, divide the area of operation of the society into zones for the purpose of election of members of the committee. (1B) The term of office of a committee elected after the commence of the Punjab Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1993, shall be five years from the date of its election:” 12. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. Kabul Singh, 1984 RRR 374 , to contend that the election of a candidate elected unopposed becomes complete consequent upon its declaration. He has also referred to Section 11 of the Act in this regard to contend that the Returning Officer has to prepare a consolidated list of the elected candidates including those who are declared elected unopposed. It is further submitted that the word “declared unopposed”, to be mentioned in the consolidated list to be prepared, means that it would reflect the date on which they were so elected and declared. Insofar Section 26(1B) of the Act is concerned, it only refers to the term of the committee and not the term of the Director which would not start working until and unless the Committee is duly constituted after consolidated election result is notified. 13. Insofar Section 26(1B) of the Act is concerned, it only refers to the term of the committee and not the term of the Director which would not start working until and unless the Committee is duly constituted after consolidated election result is notified. 13. I find force in the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner because the Returning Officer is empowered to declare election of a Director in any zone who gets a walk over on account of lack of opposition and is declared immediately thereafter as duly elected. Similarly, where there is a contest, the declaration is made by the Returning Officer accordingly. Thus, there are two channels of election, namely, the candidates declared elected unopposed and after contest and in a particular case where the candidates were elected unopposed and declared on a particular date then in view of the decision in Manjit Singh’s case (supra), their election is complete as soon as the result is declared and the period of 90 days would start running from the said date. Insofar as Section 26(1B) is concerned, it only talks of the term of the Committee which would be of 5 years from the date of its election and it has nothing to do with the period of limitation to file the election petition. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders dated 08.12.2011 and 09.12.2011 are set aside. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————