Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 284 (JK)

Ab. Rashid War v. State of J&K

2016-05-20

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the writ petitioners questioning the order of the Writ Court made in OWP No. 1380/2014 dated 30.11.2015, upholding the notification SRO 236 dated 25.04.2013, issuing amendment to Rule 20, 21 and 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Co-operative Societies Act, 1989 permitting the Registrar Cooperative Societies to conduct elections and to assign the task of Returning Officers to the Assistant Commissioner Revenue of the District or persons authorized by him for conducting elections to the management committees/Boards of various co-operative societies. The case of the appellants before the Writ Court was that they were elected as Secretaries of various Multipurpose Cooperative societies. According to the appellants the societies in which they were elected in their respective post were registered initially under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1940 and thereafter extended registration under the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which Act was repealed in the year 1989 and as such the same are registered under the 1989 Act. In the said Act there is a rule making provision, namely Rule 176, empowering the Government to frame rules regarding conducting of elections in the cooperative societies. As per rule 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Co-operative Societies Rules, 2001, the elections of the members of the Committee/Board of any society shall be held on such date as specified by the Registrar and shall be conducted under the control of Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) within whose jurisdiction registered office of the society is situated by such returning officer and other officers as may be appointed by him in this behalf. According to the appellants, by vesting the said power to the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), who being an authority under the Government, the autonomous character of the societies was jeopardized and the appellants and other elected Boards/Committees submitted representations before the Government pursuant to which SRO 1 of 2005, dated 04.01.2005 was issued amending Rule 16 of 2001 Rules empowering the governing body of the society to conduct the elections of the Committee/Board of society. By the said amendment issued in the year 2005 the power given to supervise the elections by appointing Returning Officers in tune with 2001 amendment was revoked and the same is being restored through impugned SRO 236 of 2013, dated 25.04.2013. By the said amendment issued in the year 2005 the power given to supervise the elections by appointing Returning Officers in tune with 2001 amendment was revoked and the same is being restored through impugned SRO 236 of 2013, dated 25.04.2013. The said amendment is challenged by the appellants along with the election notification issued for conducting elections to various cooperative societies including the societies where the appellants are elected as Board of Directors/Secretaries. 2. The grounds raised in the writ petition was that while issuing the amendment through SRO 236 of 2013, principles of natural justice were not followed as no hearing was given to the appellants who are the members of different societies. The second ground of attack is that by virtue of the said amendment the autonomous character of the societies is affected and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The 3rd ground is that the amendment issued, amending the Rules is contrary to Section 176 of the Act and therefore, same is ultra vires to the Act. 3. The respondents herein opposed the prayer made in the writ petition by contending that Rules framed in the year 2001 including Rule 16 thereof were framed in exercise of powers vested under Section 176 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 and by the amendment of 2013 the position which was in vogue prior to issuance of SRO 1 of 2005 was restored. It is also stated in the reply that reason to amend the Rules arose in view of gross abuse of power and authority conceded vide SRO 1 of 2005 to the Managing Committees of the Cooperative Societies as well as the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPAOW No. 76/2012, dated 06.11.2012 which was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No. 7745/2013 by order dated 19.02.2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the State to revisit the Rules and conduct elections to various cooperative societies to see that the elected representatives are manning the Managing Committees of the cooperative societies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the State to revisit the Rules and conduct elections to various cooperative societies to see that the elected representatives are manning the Managing Committees of the cooperative societies. It was also the contention of the respondents that clause XI of Section 176 of the Act gives an absolute power to the Government to make rules, providing for elections of the members of the Managing Committee of the Cooperative societies and the right to become the electorate, contest the election to the managing committee/Board of the cooperative societies is not affected in any manner and the election commissioner or other nominees who will function as Returning Officers, will only conduct the elections including supervision and thus the autonomy of the cooperative societies is not at all effected as right to participate in elections or contest the elections are exclusively with the members and merely because the Officers of the Government are authorized to conduct elections as per the directions of the Registrar, no right of the appellants are prejudiced and it will ensure conduct of timely elections of the societies on the expiry of the term of office to prevent the previously elected office bearers to clinch in their respective posts. Thus the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The Writ Court considered the rival contentions and dismissed the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently emphasized on three grounds, which were urged before the Writ Court, viz.:- (a) The amendment issued is beyond the rule making power of the State and the same is in violation of Section 176 of the Jammu and Kashmir Co-operative Societies Act, 1989; (b) Before issuing the amendment, no notice was issued to the appellants or the society members to give their objections and the amendment has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) By virtue of amendment the Government Officers have been empowered to supervise the elections and serve as Returning Officers by which the autonomous character of the societies is affected. 6. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and argued that due to the failure on the part of the elected Managing Committees to conduct elections on completion of their tenure in terms of the Act and Rules, the Government, in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 176 of the Act, permitted the Registrar to assign the work of conducting elections to the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) of the area where the registered societies are located by appointing Returning Officers to conduct elections in peaceful manner and the same has not, in any way, affected the autonomy of the societies. Learned counsel also submitted that while amending the rule, particularly while restoring the old rule which was issued in the year 2001, by amending the rule in the year 2005, no notice need be issued to the societies to put forward their views as it is a settled principle of law that rule making authority need not give any notice before amending the rules to any person as it is the prerogative of the executive to issue rules/amend the rules, which is a policy decision. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant when was put a specific-question as to when the appellants were elected in their respective posts, he fairly submitted that they were elected a long ago and no elections to the cooperative societies were held for several years. 9. For deciding the issues raised in this appeal, certain provisions of the J & K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 are required to be seen. The societies were formed after registration given by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is appointed by the Government for whole of the State for all type of societies in terms of Section 3 of the Act. The Government may also appoint person/persons to assist him as per Section 3(2) of the Act. As per Section 3(3) every person appointed to assist the Registrar shall exercise the powers conferred on him under sub-Section (2) subject to the general superintendence and control of the Registrar. Section 3(4) empowers the Government to appoint any member as Additional Registrar to assist the Registrar who also should work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. Section 3(4) empowers the Government to appoint any member as Additional Registrar to assist the Registrar who also should work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. The Registrar is vested with the power to register the societies, approve the amendment of bye-laws, cancel the registration granted, re-organization of the societies etc. The elections and nomination of members and the duration of their office of the committee is dealt with under Section 29 which reads as follows:- "29. Election and nomination of members of Committees: (1) The members of the Committee of a Co-operative Society shall be elected in such manner as may be prescribed and no person shall be elected unless he is a share holder of the society. (2) The term of office of the Committee shall be three years. (3) Each Committee shall within 90 days before expiry of its term, make arrangements for the constitution of a new Committee in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and bye-laws made there under. (4) Where any Committee has ceased to hold office and no Committee has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and bye-laws made there under, The Government or the Registrar may, by an order in writing, appoint a Board of Management and an Administrator for such period as may, from time to time, be specified in the order and the Board of Management or an Administrator shall before the expiry of the period of his appointment, arrange for the constitution of a new Committee in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules and bye-laws made there under." 10. From the above referred provisions it is evident that the term of office of the Committee shall be three years and each Committee shall within 90 days before expiry of its term, make arrangement for constitution of new Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules/bye-laws and expiry of the term of office the Registrar is entitled to appoint a Board of Management or Administrator for such period as may from time to time be specified in the order and before expiry of the period of such appointment the Board of Management or Administrator, shall arrange for constitution of the new Committee in accordance with the Act, Rules and the bye-laws. Section 176 of the Act deals with the power to make rules. The said Section reads as follows:- "176. Power to make Rules: (1) The Government may for the whole or any part of the State and for any class of Co-operative societies after previous publication, make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the fore-going powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (i)........ (xi) the election of members of committee by the general body of co-operative society." 11. Thus the power of the Government to frame rules for conducting periodical elections of the members of the Committee by the general body of the co-operative society, which is one of the requirement to carry out the functions of the society, is specifically provided in the Act. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, empowering Registrar to assign the conduct of elections to the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) and permitting the Assistant Commissioner to nominate Returning Officers, is not provided under the Act, cannot be accepted. As clause (xi) would reveal that rule making power of the government extends to all matters relating to elections of the members of the Committees/Boards by the general body of the co-operative society. The elections of the members of the Committee/Board being mandatory to carry out the purposes of the Act as per Section 176(1), hence all matters connected with such elections can be framed under Rules and Rule 16 to 25 of 2001 Rules deals with the same. Rule 16 reads thus:- "16. Election of the members of Committee/Board: (1) The election of the members of the Committee/Board of any society having jurisdiction within a district, other than an agricultural credit society, shall be held on such date as may be specified by the Registrar and shall be conducted under the control of Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) within whose jurisdiction registered office of the society is situated, by such Returning Officer and other officers as may be appointed by him in this behalf. (2) The election of members of a Committee/Board of any society having jurisdiction in two or more districts shall be held on such date, as may be specified by the Registrar and shall be conducted under the control of Dy. (2) The election of members of a Committee/Board of any society having jurisdiction in two or more districts shall be held on such date, as may be specified by the Registrar and shall be conducted under the control of Dy. Commissioner of the District in which the registered office of the society is situated by such returning officer and other officers as may be appointed by him in this behalf. (3) The voting at elections held under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be by secret ballot. (4) No elections shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Act. (5) Any dispute arising out of an election held under sub-rule (1) & (2) shall be referred for decision to the Registrar who shall decide it himself. (6) The reference of the dispute under sub-rule (5) may be made by any aggrieved party by submitting an election petition to the Registrar, within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. (7) The decision of the Registrar shall be final. (8) The election of representatives of a society or a higher level society shall be made by the committee of the society by a majority vote in the manner prescribed. In case of the tie, the Chairman shall have the casting vote." 13. In the year 2001 the power was assigned to the Registrar to nominate the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) of the concerned District to conduct elections including power to appoint Returning officer, which was objected to and in the year 2005 the said power was taken away. Thereafter this Court in LPAOW No. 76/2012 dated 06.11.2012, noticing the attitude of the Committees in not conducting elections before the expiry of 90 days of the term of the Management Committees and clinching on the post by objecting the appointment of the Administrator and claiming to continue beyond three years, which is in conflict with Section 29 of the Act and in particular Section 29(2), gave directions to conduct elections of the Management Committees of the societies immediately after taking a decision in respect of review of Rules and further directed the Registrar to ensure the conduct of elections strictly in accordance with the mandate contained in the J & K Co-operative Societies Act, 1989 and Co-operative Society Rules, 2001. The said order was challenged by the usurpers of the power as they continued even after expiry of their term of office before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No. 7745/2013 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court by order dated 19.02.2013 passed the following order:- "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the matters, we are not inclined to entertain the same, since directions have already been given by the High Court for holding of elections for the Members of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society after reviewing the Rules relating to holding of the elections. However, as has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners, such directions had been given by the High Court as far back as in the month of October, 2012, and, in fact, an Administrator had also been appointed in the month of August, 2012. Directions had been given to the Administrator to oversee the elections, but the same are not being held on account of the fact that according to the petitioners, the Rules are yet to be revised. In such circumstances, while not interfering with the order passed by the High Court, we direct the Registrar of the Co-operative Society, Jammu & Kashmir, to ensure that the revision of the Rules for election of the Managing Committee of the various Co-operative Societies, is completed within a month from the date of the communication of this order. Consequently, the elections to the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society in question, is to be completed within two months thereafter on the basis of the amended Rules. Any observations made in the impugned judgments of the High Court, shall be treated only as obiter and shall not be held against the petitioners in any way. As far as the costs imposed are concerned, the same are reduced by 50 per cent. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid observations." 14. On perusal of the above order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is evident that the order of the Division Bench of this Court, giving directions by order dated 06.11.2012 to decide the revising of Rules by the Government in the conduct of elections, was not interfered. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid observations." 14. On perusal of the above order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is evident that the order of the Division Bench of this Court, giving directions by order dated 06.11.2012 to decide the revising of Rules by the Government in the conduct of elections, was not interfered. On the contrary, Hon'ble the Supreme Court directed the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to ensure that revision of Rules for elections of the Management Committees is completed within one month from the date of communication of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the elections were directed to be completed within two months thereafter on the basis of revised rules. The said judgment clearly mandates the State to review the Rules and elections were directed to be conducted on the basis of the amended rules which were directed to be amended. 15. The impugned amendment, as rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, was issued pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence the appellants are not entitled to start second round of litigation to stall the elections which were notified after amending the Rules in terms of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge with regard to the power of the State to amend the Rules, empowering the Registrar to entrust the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) to supervise and permitting the Assistant Commissioners to appoint Returning Officers for smooth and timely conduct of elections are perfectly justified and is within the competence of the Rule making authority which is provided under Section 176 read with Section 29 of the Act. 16. Insofar as the second ground urged by learned counsel for the appellants, that permitting the Registrar to authorize the Assistant Commissioners to conduct elections by nominating Returning Officers will affect the autonomous character of the co-operative societies, is concerned, no material is produced before this Court except the said vague contention. 16. Insofar as the second ground urged by learned counsel for the appellants, that permitting the Registrar to authorize the Assistant Commissioners to conduct elections by nominating Returning Officers will affect the autonomous character of the co-operative societies, is concerned, no material is produced before this Court except the said vague contention. As already stated, the elected Management Committees before expiry of three months of their term failed to take steps to conduct elections for the new Committees/Board and a categorical finding to that effect was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on 06.11.2012 and positive directions were issued to revisit the rules to ensure timely conduct of elections. The said direction was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court with a further direction not only to ensure revision of rules is completed within a month from the date of communication of the order but to complete the elections of all the Management committees within two months on the basis of the revised rules. Merely because the Assistant Commissioner or persons authorized by him are allowed to act as Returning Officers for smooth conduct of elections, no one will be prejudiced to become a member, to contest the elections if he is eligible to contest as per bye-laws and rules or to exercise the voting right, if permissible under the bye-laws and rules. If elections are not conducted periodically by the Managing Committees whose term of office is over, the courts are bound to appoint the officers to conduct elections so that democratically elected persons are in office and instances are many. By such process of conducting elections the transparency and impartiality in conducting elections will be ensured and no autonomous character of the society will be affected in any manner. Conducting elections periodically in a transparent way is the basic feature of democracy. Thus the contention of the appellants that the autonomy of the societies is affected by virtue of SRO issued on 25.04.2013 in without any basis and the same is rejected. 17. Conducting elections periodically in a transparent way is the basic feature of democracy. Thus the contention of the appellants that the autonomy of the societies is affected by virtue of SRO issued on 25.04.2013 in without any basis and the same is rejected. 17. The 3rd contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that on the basis of the representation submitted by the Management Committees/Boards, SRO issued in the year 2001 was modified in the year 2005 and the Management Committees/Boards were permitted to conduct elections and the power of the Registrar to nominate Assistant Commissioners to conduct elections by appointing Returning officers was changed and by the impugned SRO issued in the year 2013, the SRO issued in the year 2005 has been changed by restoring the rules issued in the year 2001, without any notice to the appellants or any officer bearer of the societies. 18. Admittedly the impugned SRO is amending the Rules. It is well settled proposition of law that when rules are amended or policy decision is taken by the legislature or the executive, hearing is not contemplated. The said principle laid down in the decision reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 (Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) (P.) Ltd. V. Union of India), was reiterated in the decision reported in (1994) 5 SCC 509 (Madras City Wine Merchants Association & Anr. v. State of T.N. & Anr.). In the said case the renewal of Bar licensees attached to the retail vending shops was abolished with effect from 01.06.1993 by Tamil Nadu Government vide GO Ms. No. 44, dated 03.03.1993 based on complaints received from the public. The contention was that before issuing the Government order not to renew license, the licenses were not heard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to natural justice and dismissed the plea of the Bar Licensees. In the decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 227 (M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. & Ors.), the said principle is reiterated in paragraph 23 and it is held thus:- "23. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that before raising the national and festival holidays from their original number under the Parent Act, to the number of days contemplated by the Amending Act, the industries or their representatives should have been given an opportunity of hearing. This argument is wholly untenable. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that before raising the national and festival holidays from their original number under the Parent Act, to the number of days contemplated by the Amending Act, the industries or their representatives should have been given an opportunity of hearing. This argument is wholly untenable. Principles of natural justice cannot be imported in the matter of legislative action. If the Legislature, in exercise of its plenary power under Article 245 of the Constitution, proceeds to enact a law, those who would be affected by that law cannot legally raise a grievance that before the law was made, they should have been given an opportunity of hearing." In the decision reported in (2002) 2 SCC 7 (State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh & Ors.), it is held that following principles of natural justice to legislature function will arise only if the same is provided in the statute itself. In paragraph 9 it is held thus:- "9. Once it is found that the power exercisable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act respectively is legislative in character, the question that arises, is whether the State Government, while exercising that power, the rule of natural justice is required to be observed? It is almost settled law that an act legislative in character-primary or subordinate, is not subjected to rule of natural justice. In case of legislative act of legislature, no question of application of rule of natural justice arises. However, in case of subordinate legislation, the legislature may provide for observance of principle of natural justice or provide for hearing to the resident of the area before making any declaration in regard to the territorial area of a Gram Sabha and also before establishing a Gram Sabha for that area. We have come across many enactments where an opportunity of hearing has been provided for before any area is excluded from one Gram Sabha and included it in different Gram Sabhas or a local authority. However, it depends upon the legislative wisdom and the provisions of an enactment. Where the legislature has provided for giving an opportunity of hearing before excluding an area from a Gram Sabha and including it in another local authority or body, an opportunity of hearing is sine qua non and failure to give such an opportunity of hearing to the residents would render the declaration invalid. Where the legislature has provided for giving an opportunity of hearing before excluding an area from a Gram Sabha and including it in another local authority or body, an opportunity of hearing is sine qua non and failure to give such an opportunity of hearing to the residents would render the declaration invalid. But where the legislature in its wisdom has not chosen to provide for any opportunity of hearing or observance of principle of natural justice before issue of a declaration either under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act, the residents of the area cannot insist for giving an opportunity of hearing before the area where they are residing is included in another Gram Sabha or local authority.........." (Emphasis added) 19. The decision cited by learned counsel for the appellants reported in (2003) 3 SCC 321 (St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education), is not helpful to the appellants as it deals with the purpose of subordinate legislation. In paragraph 10, it is held as under:- "10..........The power to make subordinate legislation is derived from the enabling Act and it is fundamental that the delegate on whom such a power is conferred has to act within the, limits of authority conferred by the Act. Rules cannot be made to supplant the provisions of the enabling Act but to supplement it. What is permitted is the delegation of ancillary or subordinate legislative functions, or, what is fictionally called, a power to fill up details. The legislature may, after laying down the legislative policy confer discretion on an administrative agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to the agency to work out the details within the frame work of policy. The need for delegated legislation is that they are framed with care and minuteness when the statutory authority making the Rule, after coming in to force of the Act, is in a better position to-adapt the Act to special circumstances. Delegated legislation permits utilisation of experience and consultation with interests affected by the practical operation of statutes. Rules and Regulations made by Reason of the specific power conferred by the Statutes to make Rules and Regulations establish the pattern of conduct to be followed. Regulations are in aid of enforcement of the provisions of the Statute. Delegated legislation permits utilisation of experience and consultation with interests affected by the practical operation of statutes. Rules and Regulations made by Reason of the specific power conferred by the Statutes to make Rules and Regulations establish the pattern of conduct to be followed. Regulations are in aid of enforcement of the provisions of the Statute. The process of legislation by departmental Regulations saves time and is intended to deal with local variations and the power to legislate by statutory instrument in the form of Rules and Regulations is conferred by Parliament. The main justification for delegated legislation is that the legislature being over burdened and the needs of the modern day society being complex it cannot possibly foresee every administrative difficulty that may arise after the Statute has begun to operate. Delegated legislation fills those needs. The Regulations made under power conferred by the Statute are supporting legislation arid have the force and affect, if validly made, as the Act passed by the competent legislature........." The decision is with reference to power of rule making authority i.e. rule should be in consonance with the purpose for which the Act was enacted. Another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, namely, (2008) 7 SCC 117 (Pancham Chand & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) is also distinguishable on facts. In the said case the Chief Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh recommended for grant of stage carriage permit to the Transport Commissioner which was found to be an interference with the functioning of the quasi-judicial authority and same was held to be erroneous as the State Government does not function with the Chief Minister alone. Similarly the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, (2006) 4 SCC 517 (State of T.N. & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors.), is also distinguishable as the premature termination of lease was effected under Section 38-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which is an executive act and was found not a legislative Act, therefore, the vested right of the licensees having been abrogated by termination of the lease before the period for which the licenses were granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice should have been followed. The section itself contemplates hearing to be extended to the licenses. 20. The section itself contemplates hearing to be extended to the licenses. 20. Here in this case, the period for which the appellants were elected to the Management Committees/Boards of the Co-operative societies was already over and due to non-conduct of the elections, directions were issued by this Court, affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to consider review of the rules and the State Government amended the rules. The impugned SRO was issued for amending the Rules considering the fact of not conducting elections to, the Managing Committees/Boards of the Co-operative societies. Thus issuance of notice before amending the Rules, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, was rightly rejected by the Writ Court. 21. In the light of the above findings arrived by us, we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court which has analyzed every issue raised by the appellants and rendered a judgment which is perfectly in order. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. As the elections were not conducted, as notified earlier, the 3rd respondent is directed to take steps to conduct elections to those of the Management Committees/Boards whose term has expired, in terms of Section 29 of the J & K Co-operative Societies Act, 1989, within one month and complete the elections within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.