JUDGMENT : The petitioners - the Managing Committee and the President of a Bank-have filed this Writ Petition questioning the action of the State Co-operative Election Commission, the first respondent, in rejecting the Bank's request to conduct the election in January, 2016. The rejection is on the grounds that beyond 31.12.2015 elections should be held on a ward basis and that the petitioner Bank so far has not divided its area of operation into wards. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Managing Committee of the petitioner Bank will have its term come to an end on 22.01.2016; accordingly, it passed Ext.P1 resolution to conduct the election for the committee on 17.01.2016. On the basis of Ext.P1 resolution, the petitioner Bank sent Ext.P2 request to the Election Commission; it has required the Commission to appoint an Electoral Officer and a Returning Officer, so that they could take all the necessary steps to hold elections on 17.01.2016. The Election Commission has, nevertheless, through Ext.P3, rejected the petitioners' request. Under those circumstances, the petitioners, assailing Ext.P3, have filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has initially drawn my attention to Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders to submit that the stipulation that the election should be held on a ward basis had already been relaxed up to 31.12.2015. According to him, since the Bank passed a resolution and communicated it to the Election Commission before 31.12.2015, it shall be deemed that the election process had begun before 31.12.2015. 4. In other words, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel that whatever the law that has been prevailing when the election process begins shall be applied until the process is concluded, i.e., holding of the election and the declaring of results. 5. The learned counsel has also further submitted that initially the Government issued Exts.P4 and P5 orders exempting certain societies from the rigour of Section 28: holding elections on a ward basis. The relaxation was due to the fact that no guidelines had been prepared by the Government for dividing the areas of the societies into wards. According to the learned counsel, to this day there is still no change in the position-the guidelines are unavailable. 6. The relaxation was due to the fact that no guidelines had been prepared by the Government for dividing the areas of the societies into wards. According to the learned counsel, to this day there is still no change in the position-the guidelines are unavailable. 6. Drawing my attention to Rule 35A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('the Rules'), the learned counsel would further contend that as per the statutory mandate that the candidate, their proposer, and the seconder should be from the same ward. Unless the guidelines are issued and accordingly wards are divided, the societies cannot hold elections on a ward basis, nor can they determine whether the candidates, their seconders, and their proposers are from the same ward. 7. The learned counsel has further contended that the election notification, as can be seen from Rule 35A (3) of the Rules, should be issued reflecting the wards, which have been mentioned as constituencies. And in the absence of any division of wards, the election cannot be postponed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another ( (2001) 8 SCC 509 ) and Vijayan and another v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, 2009 (1) KHC 235. 8. Eventually, the learned counsel has submitted that the Managing Committee had already divided the wards and sent the proposal to the Joint Registrar for approval. The learned counsel has also submitted that in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the respondents have already accepted the petitioner's stand. In elaboration, he has submitted that even the Government is in agreement that the expression 'election' is wide enough to include the entire process of election consisting of several steps. 9. Per contra, Sri D. Somasundaram, the learned Special Government Pleader, has submitted that the petitioner's entire plea is fallacious and unsustainable. He has initially drawn my attention to Section 28 of the Act, especially the third proviso thereof, to hammer home his contention that the elections are required to be held on a ward basis concerning the societies mentioned in the third proviso to Section 28. According to him, initially the Government, exercising its powers under Section 101 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act'), exempted those societies from the requirement of having the division of wards for conducting the election. According to him, initially the Government, exercising its powers under Section 101 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act'), exempted those societies from the requirement of having the division of wards for conducting the election. At any rate, the said exemption could last only up to 31.12.2015. 10. In elaboration, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that in terms of Rule 35A(7) of the Rules, which is mandatory, all steps leading up to the election and the declaration of the result thereof shall be scrupulously followed. Any procedural infraction will vitiate the election. 11. The learned Special Government Pleader has also drawn my attention to Rule 5 of the Rules to contend that going by the scope of the bye-laws, the Rules and the Act, the term 'constituency' employed in Rule 35A of the Rules should be equated with the area of the society, rather than the ward. According to him, the petitioner Bank has ample power to divide the area into wards, and it has already done so, as is evident from Ext.P6. The election for the petitioner Bank, therefore, shall be held only on a ward basis, but not otherwise. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. Issues: 1. In the absence of the necessary guidelines and the actual division of wards, whether the elections be invariably held on a non-ward basis, notwithstanding the expiry of the term fixed in Ext.P5 Government Order? 2. Once the election process has commenced, whether the law as has been applicable at the inception should be applied till the process is completed, i.e., the declaration of results? Issue No.1: 13. Indisputably, the petitioner Bank is a Service Co-operative Bank. In terms of the third proviso of Section 28A, the election to the petitioner Bank shall be conducted on a ward basis. Nevertheless, in the light of the logistical shortcomings being faced by the societies, especially in the absence of the necessary guidelines for the division of wards, the Government, invoking its power under Section 101 of the Act, exempted the societies up to 31.12.2014, through Ext.P4 Government Order, from the mandatory requirement of having the elections held on a ward basis. Later, the period was extended up to 31.12.2015 through Ext.P5 order. 14. Later, the period was extended up to 31.12.2015 through Ext.P5 order. 14. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, first, that so far the Government has not framed any guidelines; second, that as the election process had begun before 31.12.2015, its conclusion by way of actual election and declaration of result must be based on the exemption provided under Ext.P5 Government Order. At this juncture, it is relevant to examine Ext.P5, which to the extent relevant, reads as follows: “The Government have considered the matter in detail and are satisfied that it is necessary in public interest to extend the exemption for a further period of one year from 1st January, 2015 to 31st December, 2015 or till the date of conducting election to the committee after duly registering bye-laws in accordance with the provisions of the said Amendment Act, whichever is earlier.” (emphasis supplied) 15. At the outset, it is apposite to observe that in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rules framed for election of specified societies are complete code in themselves providing for the entire process of election beginning from the stage of preparation of the provisional voters list, decision on the objection by the Collector, finalisation of electoral rolls, holding of election, and declaration of result of the election. In view of the statutory scheme, the preparation of voters' list must be held to be part of the election process for constituting managing committee of a specified society. Thus, the Court has emphatically held that the election process compendiously takes into its fold various steps including the issuance of election notification extending up to the declaration of results. To the Government's credit, it has in its counter affidavit affirmed the said proposition. 16. The question to be determined, however, is whether, in the present instance, the election process has begun. As can be seen, the petitioner Bank passed Ext.P1 resolution and sent Ext.P2 request to the Election Commission. Usually, based on the request of the society, the Election Commission issues the notification. In my considered view, either passing of a resolution by the society to hold elections or its request in connection thereof cannot be treated as part of the election process. 17. In other words, the election process begins with the issuance of notification. Usually, based on the request of the society, the Election Commission issues the notification. In my considered view, either passing of a resolution by the society to hold elections or its request in connection thereof cannot be treated as part of the election process. 17. In other words, the election process begins with the issuance of notification. Differently stated, despite passing of a resolution, there could have been numerous instances where the Election Commission could not initiate the process, especially, owing to certain technical shortcomings or statutory non-compliances on the part of the society. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the present instance the process has not actually begun because the Election Commission through Ext.P3 refused to act on the petitioners' Ext.P2 request. Issue No.2: 18. In the alternative, we may examine the issue from a different perspective. Assuming that the election process has begun with Ext.P1 resolution, we are required to determine the law that prevailed at the time when the said resolution was passed. 19. This Court in Vijayan (supra) has held that the prescription in Rule 35(3)(b) read with the provisions in sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 35 of the Rules clearly demonstrates that the process of election aimed at constituting a committee would commence only when the Returning Officer takes necessary steps to conduct the election by publishing the copies of the list of members as supplied by the committee. 20. As can be seen from Section 28 of the Act, the requirement of holding elections on a ward basis is mandatory, for the petitioner Bank falls under the category of the societies mentioned in the third proviso to the said Section. That being the law holding the field, the Government has temporarily eclipsed it by exercising its powers under Section 101 of the Act. This eclipse being an executive fiat can only last up to the period the Government actually has intended it to last. 21. Expressed differently, in Ext.P5 Government Order, it has been specifically mentioned that the exemption shall extend for a further period up to 31st December, 2015 or until the date of conducting the election to the committee, whichever is earlier. In its wisdom, the executive has consciously chosen to have the exemption period in the alternative: either 31st December 2015, or the actual date of election, whichever is earlier. In its wisdom, the executive has consciously chosen to have the exemption period in the alternative: either 31st December 2015, or the actual date of election, whichever is earlier. In the light of the unambiguous expression of the executive will in Ext.P5, the statutory eclipse cannot be extended beyond the period it was sought to be employed. Thus, viewed from either perspective, the contention that the election should be held on non-ward basis, in my considered view, cannot be countenanced. 22. The learned counsel has, in the alternative, contended that initially the Government was constrained to issue Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders essentially owing to the fact that no guidelines had been framed concerning the division of wards in a society. According to him, so far no guidelines have been framed, and the situation that compelled the Government to issue Exts.P4 and P5 has still prevailed. 23. The learned Special Government Pleader has, however, refuted the petitioners' contention by drawing my attention to Ext.P5 Government Order. According to him, any reference to the absence of the guidelines is conspicuously absent in Ext.P5. Be that as it may, once the principal enactment mandates that a particular method be taken recourse to, the absence of procedural mechanism cannot defeat the solemn statutory scheme, especially, when it is couched in mandatory terms. 24. In other words, it is a well-established cannon of administrative jurisprudence that the subordinate legislation is in aid of the principal legislation. Despite the absence of guidelines or procedural parameters fixed by the executive by exercising its power under the delegated legislation, it cannot, however, stultify the substantial statutory scheme under primary legislation. 25. Under the above circumstances, to supplement the procedural shortcomings, if any, the executive is always at liberty to exercise its residuary powers, for example, under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Under those circumstances, the petitioner Bank cannot be heard saying that in the absence of guidelines, the mandate under Section 28 of the Act that the election be held on a ward basis should be rendered nugatory. 26. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner-Bank has already divided its area into wards and sent Ext.P6 proposal to the Joint Registrar for his acceptance. 26. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner-Bank has already divided its area into wards and sent Ext.P6 proposal to the Joint Registrar for his acceptance. Under these facts and circumstances, it is open for the Joint Registrar to examine Ext.P6 resolution passed by the petitioner Bank and take an appropriate decision as regards the division of wards. Once the division of wards obtains the imprimatur of the Joint Registrar, the Bank may as well take further steps in conducting elections on wards basis. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.