ORDER : G. Narendar, J. 1. Smt. Seema Shiva Naik, the learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 4 in W.P. Nos. 109888 to 109892 and 109939 of 2016. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents and the learned Standing Counsel Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy and Smt. Seema Shiva Naik on behalf of the Secretary of the APMC. 3. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings of the Government dated 16-11-2016, whereby the elections that were scheduled pursuant to earlier calendar of events are sought to be cancelled. In the said order, the Government has relied upon the order of this Court dated 15-11-2016 whereby the Court upon consideration of LA. No. 1 preferred by the State in the disposed of writ petition in W.P. No. 30925 of 2016 and other connected matters has been pleased to allow the interim application seeking for issuance of fresh calendar of events as per the document annexed to the affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operative, M.S. Building. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate has filed a written statement of objection, no statements of objections are filed by the Counsel on behalf of the respective APMC. 5. It is submitted by the Counsels for the petitioners that the impugned notification is contrary to the law and the State has no power to redo the election process or reschedule the calendar of events. It is submitted that under the calendar of events notified earlier, the election process had commenced and the scrutiny of applications were also completed at which stage the impugned notification came to be issued. 6. It is contended that the State Government is denuded of any power to reschedule the elections and the impugned order is to be read down as postponement of elections and the elections are to be continued from the stage at which they interrupted. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Principal Bench in W.P. Nos. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the orders rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Principal Bench in W.P. Nos. 59785 to 59787 of 2016 and W.P. No. 59789 of 2016, wherein the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the notification dated 16-11-2016 insofar as it relates to the elections of APMC constituencies, i.e., items 6 and 9 i.e., Kudluru and Karakuchhi constituencies. It was also pleased to hold that once elections is announced, the same cannot be interrupted or intercepted by any action of the Government and all steps ought to be taken to see that the election process commenced is completed without any lacuna. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of K. Channaiah and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2000 Kar. 2572 and in the case of Prashant P.D. v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2009 (5) Kar. L.J. 280 to hold that the impugned notification is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 7. It is seen that the said judgments, upon which reliance is placed by the learned Single Judge, are rendered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, referred to as 'the Act') while interpreting the scope of Section 30-B of the Act. In the said case, the State Government attempted to curtail the election process to the Co-operative Society by invoking provision of Section 30-B. The provision of Section 30-B reads as follows: "30-B. Powers to give direction in public interest. - (1) Where the State Government is satisfied that in public interest and for the purpose of securing proper implementation of co-operative and other development programmes approved or undertaken by the State Government or for specially safeguarding the interest of the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and ensuring reservation to persons belonging to such Castes, Tribes or Classes in the services under the Co-operative Societies, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of Co-operative Societies generally or to any Co-operative Society or Co-operative Societies in particular, it may issue directions from time to time and all such Co-operative Societies or the Co-operative Society concerned shall be bound to comply with such directions. (2) The State Government may modify or cancel any directions issued under sub-section (1) and in modifying or cancelling such directions may impose such conditions as it may deem fit. (3) The State Government may by notification, delegate its power under this section to the Registrar subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification." 8. A reading of the provision would disclose that no specific power is vested in the State to cancel or postpone the elections and the process and procedure for conduct of election to co-operative societies is provided under Chapter V-A of the Act. More particularly, Section 39-A deals with the conduct of elections of members of the Board and its office-bearers. Neither the provision of Chapter XI-A nor the provisions of Section 98-Q of the Act which is a special provision relating to the co-operative credit society vests any power in the State to issue any direction seeking for cancellation or postponement of poll. 9. On the contrary, the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as the APMC Act') vests a specific power in the State to issue instruction relating to all the matters connected with the election to market committee including direction for cancellation of the calendar of events or postponement of poll. 10. Section 13(4) of the APMC Act reads as follows: "13. Superintendents, direction and control of elections. - (1) to (3).... (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the State Government may issue instructions relating to all matters connected with elections to the market committees including directions for cancellation of the calendar of events or postponement of the poll." 11. A reading of the provisions of Section 13(4) of the APMC Act would demonstrate that the provision begins with a non obstante clause. In the light of the same, the reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of K. Channaiah and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others and in the case of Prashant P.D. v. State of Karnataka, cited supra, is in the humble opinion of this Court, misplaced. The said rulings have been rendered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act while interpreting the scope of Section 30-B of the Act. The said rulings have been rendered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act while interpreting the scope of Section 30-B of the Act. A reading of the provisions of Section 30-B clearly does not vest the State Government with any power to interrupt the election process. Hence, the reliance on the said citations is misplaced. 12. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions had been declared elected which is not the case in these writ petitions. The election process has been cancelled prior to the issuance of any such declaration by the Returning Officer declaring the petitioners as elected. Had such a declaration been made under the rules, the calendar of events would have expended itself and the same would not have been available for the State Government to exercise the power. That apart it is seen that the said exercise has been made pursuant to the permission by this Court and that order granting permission dated 15-11-2016 made on interlocutory application has not been called in question. 13. The contention of behalf of the petitioners that the election should be resumed from the stage at which they were interrupted would be appreciated had it been a case of postponement of polls. But in the instant case it is a case of cancellation and the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the APMC Act empowers the State Government to cancel the calendar of events also. Had the Returning Officer declared the petitioners as elected, the calendar of events would have expended itself and no power would be available with the State Government to cancel the calendar of events. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the impugned notification is vitiated by mala fides. The learned Single judge in the W.P. Nos. 59785 to 59787 of 2016 has been pleased to hold that the provisions of Section 13(4) of the APMC Act cannot be understood as vesting the State with power to interrupt with the election process at any point of time and that the scope of the impugned action of the State is to be examined in the light of the undertaking made before this Court in the disposed of writ petition. 14. 14. I am in respectful disagreement wit the said finding as the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the APMC Act clearly empowers the State to both cancel the calendar of events or postpone the polls. It is relevant to note that, no challenge is laid in the writ petition to the validity of Section 13(4) of the APMC Act. In the absence of any challenge, the petitioners cannot be heard to complain regarding the notification issued cancelling the calendar of events earlier issued and rescheduling the issuance of fresh calendar of events. 15. Apart from the above, it is also relevant to look into the circumstances which led to the passing of the order on LA. No. 1 and the tenor of the order dated 15-11-2016 passed in W.P. No. 30925 of 2015 and connected writ petition. 16. A batch of writ petitions came to be preferred before the Principal Bench and the same were heard and disposed of by a detailed order dated 13-6-2016. Certain directions came to be issued by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single judge directed the State to hold election to all the 139 APMC as under: (i) 19 APMCs whose terms has ended prior to 2016, 2 APMCs whose term has ended in April 2016 and 77 APMCs whose term have ended on 31-5-2016, shall be held on or before 31-8-2016. (ii) Term of APMCs which are coming to an end in June,/July/August 2016 whose numbers are 34, 01 and 05 respectively, shall be held on or before 15-11-2016. (iii) Remaining 1 APMC whose term would come to an end during November 2016, shall be held on or before 31-12-2016. 17. The elections were directed to be held in a staggered manner. First in respect of 19 APMC the State Government was directed, to hold elections on or before 31-8-2016. In respect of 34 APMCs, the State was directed to hold the elections on or before 15-11-2016 and in respect of the remaining one APMC, the State was directed to hold election before 31-12-2016. It also issued other directions and was also pleased to uphold the validity of Section 42 of the APMC Act. 18. In respect of 34 APMCs, the State was directed to hold the elections on or before 15-11-2016 and in respect of the remaining one APMC, the State was directed to hold election before 31-12-2016. It also issued other directions and was also pleased to uphold the validity of Section 42 of the APMC Act. 18. Thereafter, on account of various factors including a direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India and including the introduction of bill for bringing about the amendment to the APMC Act, an interlocutory application was made by the State on 10-8-2016 seeking for extension of the time to reschedule and to complete the election process and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, was pleased to allow the same and extended the time up to 30-11-2016 from the earlier date of 31-8-2016. 19. The Government thereafter issued a direction on 17-9-2016, directing all the Deputy Commissioner of the District to conduct and complete the election process of all 139 APMC on or before 30-11-2016. In tire light of the said direction, the Deputy Commissioners of various districts have issued a calendar of events. Pursuant to which the petitioners have filed their nomination. 20. In the interregnum, His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka, issued a notification calling for holding of the Assembly session from 21-11-2016 and the session was to be held at Suvarna Soudha, Belagavi. The session was called for a discussion of the prevailing drought situation in the State and also to address about the welfare measures and steps to be taken to mitigate the hardships faced by the general public which includes the APMC members. In view of the same, the State had once again sought to postpone or reschedule the holding of election and preferred I. A. No. 1 of 2016 in the writ petition, disposed of by order dated 13-6-2016. In the said application, it was brought to the notice of this Court, that more time was required to finalise and complete the election process of the APMC. It was also contended in paragraph 10 as follows: "10. It is humbly submitted that under the provisions of Section 13 of the KAP (R and D) Act, law provides or superintendence, direction and control of elections. It was also contended in paragraph 10 as follows: "10. It is humbly submitted that under the provisions of Section 13 of the KAP (R and D) Act, law provides or superintendence, direction and control of elections. By sub-section (4), it is provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the State Government may issue instructions, relating to all matters concerned with elections to the market committees, including directions for cancellation of the calendar of events or postponement of the poll. The State Government is satisfied of there being a need for cancellation of calendar of events and, postponement of polls, in the facts and circumstances, including the circumstances narrated above. It is entitled to exercise its powers in terms of the enabling provisions under Section 13(4). However, since it had held out before this Hon'ble Court; of completing the process of election, by end of November in terms of its application seeking extension; in deference to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and, the assurance held out, it is considered as appropriate to seek; orders of this Hon'ble Court to absolve itself of the said assurance or statement held out/undertaking given; to facilitate it to complete the process of election by the end of December 2016; in place of the earlier assurance of completing the same by the end of November 2016." 21. It is contended that the State is specifically empowered under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the APMC Act to cancel the calendar of events or postpone the polls, but, the State has restrained itself from exercising the said power in view of the undertaking held out to this Court and in deference to the order of this Court, it was considered appropriate to seek orders from the Hon'ble Court itself to enable the State to complete the process of election by the end of December 2016. 22. The application was listed for consideration on 15-11-2016. On the said date, an affidavit of the Secretary to Government, Department of Co-operation came to be filed enclosing therewith a proposed calendar of events, which was to be made applicable in respect of all the APMC. 23. A perusal of the affidavit dated 14-11-2016 obviates any confusion or ambiguity as to the stand of the State and the relief sought before the Court under I.A. No. 1. 23. A perusal of the affidavit dated 14-11-2016 obviates any confusion or ambiguity as to the stand of the State and the relief sought before the Court under I.A. No. 1. A reading of paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 clearly demonstrate that the State desired to reschedule the election process and complete the same by 20-1-2017. The factum of issuance of calendar of events by certain Deputy Commissioner was also placed before the Court, Paragraph 6 of the affidavit reads as follows: "6. Under the circumstances, taking note of the aforesaid submissions and undertaking, it is humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take note of submissions under the application and extend the time for completion of election process and permit us to reschedule, in terms of the enclosed communication and complete the entire process of conduct of elections to all 139 APMCs by 20-1-2017, in the interest of justice and equity." (emphasis supplied) 24. To conclude, the paragraph 6 is the relief that was prayed for by the State. The learned Single Judge after perusing the affidavit has been pleased to order and allow I.A. No. 1 and time was extended up to 20-1-2017. While, so allowing, the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe as follows: "In that view of the matter, making it explicitly clear that on no ground whatsoever further extension would be granted and any such request or prayer made would be rejected summarily, extension sought for under this application is hereby granted by placing the undertaking given before this Court today by the Secretary to Government, Department of Co-operation, on record." (emphasis supplied) 25. Thus, the relief of rescheduling of election was granted by the Court, after taking note of the affidavit of undertaking placed before the Court and the affidavit, in categorical term, states that the State intends to reschedule the election to all the APMCs. It is seen that the proposed calendar of events was also placed before the Court and the order dated 15-11-2016 came to be passed after hearing of the petitioners therein. 26. It is seen that the proposed calendar of events was also placed before the Court and the order dated 15-11-2016 came to be passed after hearing of the petitioners therein. 26. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 15-11-2016 only enables the State to postpone the election and complete the process by 20-1-2017 and that the order nowhere permits the State to cancel the calendar of events already notified and that the State has to continue the elections from the stage at which it was stopped. This Court is unable to accept the interpretation placed by the petitioners on the order dated 15-11-2016. 27. A conjoint reading of the application and the affidavit of undertaking before the Court dated 14-11-2016 makes it amply clear that what was prayed before the Court was rescheduling of all the elections. The affidavit of undertaking, filed by the Secretary to the Department to Government is accompanied by a proposed calendar of events and the Court has granted the relief by placing on record the said affidavit of undertaking. There is no finding or reasoning in the order which would indicate that the Court has disapproved of the proposed calendar of events as enclosed along with the affidavit of undertaking. 28. This Court concludes so in view of the fact that the Secretary has also placed on record the fact that the notification has already been issued in respect of certain AMPCs and has thereafter, sought for rescheduling of the elections which has been granted by the learned Single Judge. In view of the same, the present impugned notification dated 16-11-2016 ordering cancellation of the elections already notified pursuant to the directions and the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 15-11-2016 is legal and valid. Accordingly, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly rejected.