JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Filing the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the opposite party no.1 under Annexure-7 along with the consequential impugned Election Notice dated 22.2.2015 under Annexure-8. Petitioner has also the prayers as to why the opposite parties shall not be directed to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as the President of the Jhiliminda Service Cooperative Society Limited from the date of declaration of the election, as to why the opposite parties shall not be refrained from taking any action against the petitioner from discharging his duties as the President of Jhiliminda Service Cooperative Society Limited. In sum and substance, the petitioner has assailed the orders vide Annexures-7 and 8 and sought for direction against the opposite parties allowing the petitioner to function as the President of Jhiliminda Service Cooperative Society Limited being validly and lawfully elected. 2. Assailing the impugned order, referring to the pleadings in the writ petition, Sri Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Jhiliminda Service Cooperative Society Limited is a Primary Service Cooperative Society Limited within the meaning of Clause(c-2) of Section 2 of the O.C.S. Act, 1962 being managed by the Elected Board of Management. In order to get an Elected Board of Management, Election Officer-opposite party no.4 vide notice dated 27.1.1915 notified election programme concerning the society. As per the notice, polling of votes and counting of votes were fixed to 16.2.2015 commencing from 10 A.M. to 12 P.M. Following the said notice being published, three candidates including the petitioner filed nomination for the post of President of the Society. Poll process started as per the programme fixed vide Annexure-1 smoothly at 10 A.M. and it is at 11.45 A.M. when the poll process was on, one of the Presidential candidates, namely, Bibhudutta Pradhan rushed into the polling booth and filed a written complaint before the Election Officer along with six other Directors, who claimed to be present outside the office premises alleging that they are being prevented from casting their votes by the public standing outside the polling booth, as available at Annexure-9. This fact was brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bargarh division to avoid any untoward situation. This fact was brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bargarh division to avoid any untoward situation. The Polling Officer in the meantime after completion of voting time and after complying necessary formalities as scheduled, counted the votes and declared the result of the said election wherein it was found that the present petitioner has got seven votes whereas the complainant Bibhudutta Pradhan got only one vote and the third candidate acquired no votes out of total eight number of votes. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies-cum-District Election Officer on the next date of voting vide Office Letter No.571 dated 17.2.2015 brought the entire facts to the notice of the opposite party no.1 for taking necessary action. It is next pleaded that while the matter stood thus, the State Cooperative Election Officer, Orissa issued an order on 18.2.2015 wherein the Commissioner looking to the complain made in the letters received at his hand and for the reason that an F.I.R. being registered on the self same allegation, in exercise of his power under Sub-Rule 1 of 36 of the Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rule, 1992 held the election to have been vitiated and thereby declared the election of the President as void and further directed for going for a fresh poll for the election of the President thereby further directing the Election Officer to fix up another date with due intimation to all concerned. By Annexure-8, the Election Officer issued a notice for fresh polling for the Presidential post to be taken place on 1.3.2015. Challenging the impugned order under Annexures-7 and 8, Sri Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Counsel contended that as far as election of the President and Members of the Committee of Management is concerned, the provisions contained in the Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rule, 1992 are required to be followed strictly. Further referring to Rule 36 of the Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rule, 1992, Sri Acharya, learned Senior Counsel contended that even assuming that there is a complain preventing some of the candidates from casting their votes and even further assuming that there is also a F.I.R. involving the said allegation, but mere allegations did not make the case fall within the trap of Rule 36 of the Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rule, 1992. There is no application of the provisions contained in Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rule, 2014 by way of amendment even otherwise also. It was only open to raise an election dispute looking to the development that not only the election process had already commenced but the result of the election was also declared. Consequently, Sri Acharya, learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned orders are not only contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rule, 1992 but also as a result of high handed actions of the State Cooperative Election Commission with clear intention to show undue favour to the complainant. It is also contended that even assuming that there was a complaint and resulting thereby there is an F.I.R. looking to the allegation in complaint, it was either required to be looked into after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or should have been an issue involving an election dispute being raised by the complainant under the Election Rules and so far as criminal complaint is concerned , since it was only at the complaint stage it had also no bearing in the decision process and consequently it is claimed that there has been wrong handling of the issue by non else than a person, a State Cooperative Election Commission. Referring to a decision in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 , particularly referring to paragraphs 66, 74, 77 and 78, learned Senior Counsel contended that natural justice is the prime requirement in such cases and no decision of this nature should have been taken without following natural justice being afforded to the party likely to be affected. It is next contended that prime duty of the Election Commissioner here was that before proceeding to such issues, competent authority should have clearly investigated as to whether such allegation comes within the purview of Rule 36 of the Odisha Co-operative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rules, 1965 or not. It is on these premises, Sri Acharya requested for interfering in the impugned orders and setting aside the orders under Annexures-7 and 8 and thereby further directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to function as the President of the Society in question. 3. It is on these premises, Sri Acharya requested for interfering in the impugned orders and setting aside the orders under Annexures-7 and 8 and thereby further directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to function as the President of the Society in question. 3. By filing a counter, opposite party no.2 through Sri K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate while justifying the impugned orders contended that the writ petition is not maintainable both in fact and law. It is next contended that while the polling was in process on 16.2.2015 at 11.45 A.M. one of the candidates, namely, Bibhudutta Pradhan filed a written complaint available at Annexure-3 to the writ petition before the opposite party no.4 stating that he and other six signatories, all of them voters in the poll, reached the polling station in a vehicle at 10.30 A.M. but the public present outside the polling station did not allow them to enter the polling station even in presence of the police personnels as a result of which the said six voters could not cast their votes. After closure of the polling hour, opposite party no.4 informed the matter over cell phone to the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.4 was instructed over phone not to go for counting. On these premises, the matter being referred to opposite party no.1 for necessary decision but however, being pressurized by the public and the other two candidates, the opposite party no.4 counted the ballots, the Election Officer never declared the result and on the other hand submitted a report available at Amnnexure-4, which was received by the opposite party no.2 on 17.2.2015. In the meantime, at 12.30 P.M. on 16.2.2015, the complainant along with six others lodged an F.I.R. appearing at Annexure-A/2 in the Attabira Police Station for investigation and appropriate action of the police authority. It is contended by the opposite party no.2 that the State Cooperative Election Commission after consideration of the report at Annexures-3, 4 and 5 and the F.I.R./ involved therein being satisfied that the election is vitiated under Sub-Rule 1 of the Rule 36 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rule, 1992 declared the poll held on 16.2.2015 as void and by the impugned order under Annexure-7 while declaring the poll as void issued further direction for fresh poll involving the Society. In the above premises, it is therefore, contended that there is no illegality either in the order under Annexure-7 or in the order at Annexure-8, which being justified, the writ petition should be dismissed 4. Referring to several provisions contained in the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act and particularly, the provision contained in Section 28-AA, and 28-B of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and the provisions contained in Rules 32, 36, 38, 42 (2), 46(2) of the Odisha Co-operative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rules, 1965, Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State defending the action of the opposite parties thereby the impugned order under Annexures-7 and 8 contended that following the aforesaid rules, the Election Commission, who has the responsibility of a free and fair election and as he find the polling was not free and fare, was duty bound to declare the poll void and thus contended that there is no illegality in the impugned orders vide Annexures-7 and 8 otherwise. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court feels it appropriate to deal with the provisions referred to by the respective counsel before proceeding to find the merit in the matter. Section 28AA and Sub-Sections 1 and 10 of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962: “[28AA. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court feels it appropriate to deal with the provisions referred to by the respective counsel before proceeding to find the merit in the matter. Section 28AA and Sub-Sections 1 and 10 of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962: “[28AA. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to a Society vest in the State Co-operative Election Commission-The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to a Co-operative Society shall vest in the State Co-operative Election Commission consisting of a State Co-operative Election Commissioner appointed by the Governor and shall hold office for a period of five years from the date of his appointment or he attains the age of sixty-five years whichever is earlier.” “Section 28AA (10) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1), the State Co-operative Election Commission may issue directives to ensuring smooth conduct of election free from any corrupt practice, prohibited act, disorderly conduct and misconduct, subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules.” “Section 28-B. Election process not to be held up-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and Rules, election process of a Society once started, shall not be held up, and no matter relating to election of the President or members of the Committee shall be called in question before any authority under this Act until the declaration of the result of such election.]” “Schedule-III (8) (a) and (8) (b) of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act,1962,m (8) (a) persuade any person to give his vote, or dissuade him from giving his vote at an election; or (b) influence the voting of, in any person at an election in any manner.” Rules 32, 36, 38, 42(2) and 46(2) of the Odisha Co-operative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rules, 1965: “32. Sealing of ballot boxes after poll-(1) As soon as practicable after the closing of the poll, the Presiding Officer shall, in the presence of any candidates or their election agents or polling agents present, if any at the time, close the slit of the ballot box and where the ballot box does not contain any mechanical device for device for closing the slit, he shall seal up the slit and also allow any polling agent to affix his seal thereon. (2) The ballot shall thereafter be sealed and secured. (2) The ballot shall thereafter be sealed and secured. (3) Where it becomes necessary to use a second ballot box by reason of the first box getting full, the first box shall be closed, sealed and secured as provided in Sub-rules (1) and (2) before another ballot box is put into use. “36. Fresh poll in case of destruction, etc., of ballot boxes-(1) If at any election- (a) any ballot box used at a polling-station is unlawfully taken out of the custody of the Presiding Officer or the Election Officer, of is accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost, or is damaged or tampered with to such an extent that he result of the poll at the polling-station cannot be ascertained; or (b) The election could not be conducted otherwise for any reason or for any error or irregularity in the procedure poll is likely to be vitiated at a polling-station. The “(Election Officer) shall forthwith report the matter to the ‘(State Cooperative Election Commission) (2) The ‘(State Co-operative Election Commission) upon receipt of such report, or on his own motion in the circumstances stated in Sub-rule (1) after taking all material circumstances into account either – (a) declare the poll at the polling-station to be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours for taking a fresh poll at that polling-station and notify the date so appointed and the hours so fixed in such manner as he may deem fit, or (b) issue such directions to the Election Officer, or take such election as he may deem proper for smooth compliance of the election. (3) The provisions of the Act, the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965, bye-laws made there under and these rules shall apply to every such fresh poll.” “38. Counting of votes – At every election where a poll is taken, votes shall be counted by or under the supervision and direction of the Election Officer and each contesting candidates, his Election Agent and his Counting Agents shall have a right to remain present during counting. “ Rule 42 of the Rules, 1965: “42.(2).After the counting of all ballot papers, contained in all the ballot boxes used at all polling-stations, has been completed, the Election Officer shall make the entries in a result sheet in Form XII and announce the particulars.” Rule 46 (2) of the Rules 1965: “46 (2). “ Rule 42 of the Rules, 1965: “42.(2).After the counting of all ballot papers, contained in all the ballot boxes used at all polling-stations, has been completed, the Election Officer shall make the entries in a result sheet in Form XII and announce the particulars.” Rule 46 (2) of the Rules 1965: “46 (2). The Election Officer shall thereafter, forthwith, send copies of the Return of Election in Form XII, under his signature and seal to the Chief Executive of the Society, the [State Co-operative Election Commission] [the Registrar of Co-operative Societies] and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Assistant Registrar of co-operative Societies in whose jurisdictions the head office of the Society is located.” Going through the aforesaid provisions, this Court finds Section 28 AA of the Act, 1962 deals with power of superintendence, direction and control of elections to a Society vest in the State Co-operative Election Commission. Sub-Section 10 of Section 28AA of the Act, 1962 mandates the State Co-operative Election Commission may issue directives to ensuring smooth conduct of election free from any corrupt practice, prohibited act, disorderly conduct and misconduct, subject to the provisions of the Act and rules means the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 and the Orissa Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rules, 1965. This is a chapter deals with provisions for dealing with an election to a Society and issuing necessary directives ensuring smooth conduct of election and this exercise of power of the Election commission comes to an end with the issuing of notification for holding the election for the Committee. Now coming to the provisions contained in Section 28B, this section gave mandates that once an election process of society is started shall not be held up and no matter relating to election of the President of Members of the Committee shall be called in question before any authority under this Act until the declaration of the result of such election. From the pleadings of the respective parties involved in the case, the admitted position is that the election process involving the President of the particular committee had already commenced on 16.2.2015 and looking to the provisions contained in Section 28B of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. From the pleadings of the respective parties involved in the case, the admitted position is that the election process involving the President of the particular committee had already commenced on 16.2.2015 and looking to the provisions contained in Section 28B of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. Since the voting as well as counting of votes had already commenced, under no circumstance the election would have been held up and no complaint involving it should have been taken up until declaration of the result of such election. For the background involved herein, this Court also does not find application of Schedule-III to the present case. Under the circumstance, since the process of election was already commenced, the authorities passing the impugned orders under Annexures-7 and 8 were not justified in interfering in the election process and preventing the result to be declared. Considering a case as to whether an election can be stalled after commencement of election for the restriction imposed in Section 28B of the Act, taking resort to the provision contended in Rules 36 and 37, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarathi Tudu and others v. Sailo Service Co-operative Society Ltd and another, 1988 (I) OLR 460 in paragraph-6 held as follows:- “6. Rules 36 and 37 deal with different contingencies. Former rule relates to fresh election in case of destruction of ballot boxes and the latter relates to resumption of interrupted or discontinued election proceedings. It is fairly accepted at the Bar that there may be situation where continuance of the election may be an impossibility. By way of illustration it may be stated where the entire ballot boxes are destroyed by fire or otherwise, say, by acts of vandalism, or where ballot boxes are taken away by miscreants, or there is an earthquake, or curfew is imposed covering date of poll. Can it be said that election process once started cannot be held up? Whatever be the reasons, circumstances or impossibility of situation. That cannot be intention of the legislature. But as has been rightly observed in Tara Prasad Pattanaik’s case (supra), rules if any in that regard has to be in consonance with provisions in the Act, and not go beyond the scope of it. Whatever be the reasons, circumstances or impossibility of situation. That cannot be intention of the legislature. But as has been rightly observed in Tara Prasad Pattanaik’s case (supra), rules if any in that regard has to be in consonance with provisions in the Act, and not go beyond the scope of it. A statutory rule cannot enlarge the meaning of the Section, and if a rule goes beyond what the section contemplates, the rule must yield to the Statute. (See Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen; AIR 1960 SC 12 ). Rules cannot be read in such a manner as would tantamount to enlarging scope of expression defined in the Act. Rules must be legi fidei ration consona. Rules which are contrary to or repugnant to Statutes under which they are made are ineffective. They cannot travel beyond the Act. It is fairly accepted by all concerned, that for the purpose of harmonization amendment to Section 28-B, or incorporation of a specific provision to deal with situation is necessary. In view of the position of law as stands, discontinuance of election process by resort to Rules 36 and 37 cannot be upheld. The next question is once that has become a reality, what course is to be adopted. Can it be said that it has to be started from the stage where it was stalled? Election programme as was published cannot now be given effect to. In any event, date of taking action from the stage where the process of election was stalled has to be fixed. Therefore, Election Officer shall approach Chief Electoral Officer forthwith for taking such steps as would be necessary to conclude election process. The same shall be done within six weeks from today. Similar direction was given in paragraph-4 of the judgment in Tara Prasad Pattanaik’s Case (supra). The State Government would do well to take immediate steps as are necessary to effectuate Rules 36 and 37 of the Election Rules. Otherwise election process may have to be continued even when the same has become purposeless.” Reading of the aforesaid decision, this Court finds petitioner’s case also gets the support of above ruling. 6. The State Government would do well to take immediate steps as are necessary to effectuate Rules 36 and 37 of the Election Rules. Otherwise election process may have to be continued even when the same has become purposeless.” Reading of the aforesaid decision, this Court finds petitioner’s case also gets the support of above ruling. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, it further comes to notice of this Court that after counting the votes in the said election process even position of the parties participating in the poll after counting was already known, a declaration was only awaited. Reading of the counter of opposite party no.2 at paragraph-7 makes it clear that on receipt of complaint from one of the candidates, the Election Officer over phone passed the message to opposite party no.2 only after closure of polling hour and then submitted a report on 17.2.2015 but by then he had even completed the counting. It is surprise to see that when the complainant complains that all these have happened in presence of police, who were all there to see smooth poling have no complain to their authority at all and this vital aspect of the mater cannot be lost sight. Further, since an Election Officer was also there in-charge, it appears surprisingly the Election Officer has no allegation on its own, it is only he submits a report on the next day based on complain alleged to have been received on the polling date. Further, the fact that one of the Presidential candidates was moving in a Jeep with all his six voters on his own submission in clear contravention of the code of conduct could not have been lost sight of the competent authority. Further, since the complainant was himself a candidate and was very much available in the polling booth at 11.45 of the poll date, he even did not cast his vote, there appears a doubt on the submission of complaint. Following the provision above, the position is also clear that any matter relating to the election of the President or Member could not have been even called in question before any authority until declaration of result of such election. Following the provision above, the position is also clear that any matter relating to the election of the President or Member could not have been even called in question before any authority until declaration of result of such election. What appears here is even assuming that there is a complaint involving the prevention of certain voters to cast their votes, such complain could not have been called in question, before the declaration of the result of the election. Now coming to the next question as to whether the complaint raised herein attracted the provisions contained in Rule 36 of the Odisha Co-operative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rule, 1965? Facts revealed during the process of election, a complain was made by one of the contesting candidate at about 11.45 A.M. of the polling date i.e. on 16.2.2015 alleging therein that he along with six others were being prevented from casting their vote. Perusal of complaint under Annexure-3, it appears the complaint contained the allegation that those six persons including the complainant reached the poll centre at 10.30 A.M. and it is only at 11.45 A.M. they made a complain to the Election Officer making certain allegations. It also appears from Annexure-A/2 appended to the counter affidavit of opposite party no.2 that an F.I.R. was lodged before the concerned Police Station and the information was received at the Police Station on 16.2.2015 at 12.30 P.M. and 1.15 P.M. at different level. There is a great level of difference in the allegation in between the complaint and the F.I.R. The complainant when did not disclose anywhere who are the persons prevented them and assaulted them whereas the F.I.R. indicates categoric names. Further, since the complainant already reached the polling station by 10.30 A.M., what made him to wait till 11.45 A.M. and enter into a complain alleging the illegal prevention by outsiders. Be that as it may, it is now required to be considered whether the complaint available attracted Rule 36 (1) of the Rule, 1965. Reading of the Rule 36 of the Rule, 1965, quoted hereinabove; the rule prescribed fresh poll in particular circumstance clearly indicated therein. Be that as it may, it is now required to be considered whether the complaint available attracted Rule 36 (1) of the Rule, 1965. Reading of the Rule 36 of the Rule, 1965, quoted hereinabove; the rule prescribed fresh poll in particular circumstance clearly indicated therein. From the complaint and reading of the aforesaid provisions, this Court finds this is not a case either hijacking the ballot box used at a polling station unlawfully or destroying the ballot box accidentally or intentionally or even either loss or damage or tampered to such an extent that the result of poll cannot be ascertained or even bringing out a case where the election could not be conducted otherwise for any reason or for any error or irregularity in the procedure of poll is likely to be vitiated at a polling station. Reading of the report of the Election Commissioner available at Annexures-4 and 5, it leaves no doubt that not only the election process was completed but there was no disturbance in the election process in the election centre. The documents vide Annexures-4 and 5 also disclose the counting of votes was over with ascertainment of the votes casted in favour of the respective parties. Therefore, under no circumstance, the allegation made therein even otherwise attracted the provision of Rule, 36 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies (Election to the Committees) Rules, 1992. 7. It is under the observations and findings hereinabove and following the decision referred to hereinabove, this Court finds the State Co-operative Election Commission exercised his power contrary to prescription of law and there is wrong application of the provisions contained in Rule 36, Sub-rule 1 of the Rules, 1992 otherwise also. Since the action of the Election Commission contravens the provisions contained in Section 28B as well as Rule 36, Sub-rule 1 of the Rule, 1992, the impugned orders under Annexures-7 and 8 cannot be sustained. As the votes were already counted by opening ballot box following the provisions contained in Section 28B and Rule 46 of the Rule, 1965, a declaration be brought out by the Election Officer declaring the result of such election. As the votes were already counted by opening ballot box following the provisions contained in Section 28B and Rule 46 of the Rule, 1965, a declaration be brought out by the Election Officer declaring the result of such election. As there is inordinate delay in bringing the notification of the result of the election held on 16.2.2015, this Court further directs the Election Officer to bring required notification of the particular election within a period of three days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. However, there is no order as to cost.