JUDGMENT : HARSHA DEVANI, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Sahil Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the first respondent, and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the second respondent. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case and more particularly, the urgency of the matter, the case was taken up for final hearing today. 3. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the communication dated 22.03.2019 issued by the first and second respondents respectively, Annexure 'A' collectively, to the petition. The petitioners further seek permission to hold the special general body meeting within a period of fifteen days or as early as possible or any such date that may be fixed by this Court and further seek a declaration that the Code of Conduct shall not come in the way of the first petitioner Union in holding the special general body meeting and a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the holding of the special general body meeting on such date as may be permitted by this Court. 4. The first petitioner Union is a co-operative society registered under the erstwhile Mumbai Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and is deemed to be a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioners that the last election of members of managing committee of the first petitioner Union was held on 28.11.2015 and the result was declared on 28.11.2015, wherein, sixteen members of managing committee were elected. It appears that out of sixteen elected members, thirteen members belonged to one panel, whereas three members belonged to the opposite panel. Out of the thirteen members, one member got disqualified and, therefore, the total number of members belonging to the majority panel was reduced to twelve. 4.1 It is the case of the petitioners that every time when the first petitioner Union issued agenda for the general body meeting, the minority group of three directors, who were part of the custodian committee appointed by the State Government under section 74D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, tried to see that such meeting is not held. 4.1 It is the case of the petitioners that every time when the first petitioner Union issued agenda for the general body meeting, the minority group of three directors, who were part of the custodian committee appointed by the State Government under section 74D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, tried to see that such meeting is not held. In the memorandum of petition, various instances have been referred where the general body meeting could not have been held on account of these three directors. 4.2 On 08.03.2019, the first petitioner Union had issued an agenda notice for the special general body meeting which was to be held on 24.03.2019. The said agenda notice was posted on 09.03.2019 to all the 1301 members and invitees. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner Union has 1128 affiliated milk societies as members and 99 individual members and 70 other societies as members and that the agenda notice had been sent to all the aforesaid members and more than 1000 persons were to remain present in the special general body meeting. It is alleged in the petition that the three directors belonging to the minority group, did not want the petitioner Union to pass any resolution even for the benefit of its members and, therefore, used the State machinery to stall the holding of special general body meeting on 24.03.2019. Towards that end, a representation was made through the Hitrakshak Samiti to the District Registrar and also to the first respondent – District Election Officer, for postponing the special general body meeting. 4.3 On 22.03.2019, by the impugned communication, the first respondent directed the first petitioner Union to postpone the special general body meeting in view of the code of conduct having come into force. It is the case of the petitioners that the code of conduct came into force on 10.03.2019 on the declaration of the Lok Sabha elections, before which, the agenda notice dated 08.03.2019 had already been issued. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no violation of the model code of conduct in holding the special general body meeting. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition, seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. 5. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no violation of the model code of conduct in holding the special general body meeting. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition, seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. 5. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Dipen Desai learned advocate for the petitioner, invited the attention of the court to the Manual on Model Code of Conduct for the guidance of political parties and candidates and other related guidelines, to submit that it basically applies to the political parties to ensure that the party in power does not misuse the State machinery or funds for the purpose of influencing the voters. It was submitted that the model code of conduct mainly applies to the ruling Government and candidates and parties and does not apply to the general citizens. According to the learned counsel, a meeting held by a co-operative society in the regular course of its business, would not fall within the ambit of the Model Code of Conduct. 5.1 The attention of the court was invited to the sequence of events leading to the order of postponement of the special general body meeting of the first petitioner Union. It was pointed out that on 16.03.2019, the Mehsana Jilla Dudh Utpadak Hit Rakshak Samiti, addressed a communication to the District Registrar, Mehsana, against holding a meeting on 24.03.2019 on the ground that the same is in violation to the Model Code of Conduct. On 19.03.2019, the Registrar Cooperative Societies, in the context of the representation of the Mehsana Jilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Hit Rakshak Samiti received by the District Registrar, addressed a communication to the Collector, Mehsana to take action pursuant to such representation. It was pointed out that on the very same day, that is, on 19.03.2019 at 13:00 hours, the Collector, Mehsana addressed communications by email to the Deputy District Election Officer/Nodal MCC/District Registrar Mehsana, to obtain a detailed report from the District Registrar Mehsana regarding the nature of meeting, agenda items, standing orders in this regard issued from time to time and his clear opinion keeping in view the instructions contained in the circular issued by GAD (Elections) dated 10.3.2019 for implementation of the model code of conduct and to furnish a report by 17:00 hours on the same day. On the very same day, the Deputy District Election Officer addressed a communication to the Nodal Officer, MCC and the District Registrar, Mehsana stating that the Mehsana Jilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Hit Rakshak Samiti had made a representation to suspend the holding of meeting of the first petitioner Union and pursuant thereto, to consider the agenda of the meeting and the instructions issued from time to time by the District Registrar, Registrar, Co-operative Societies etc, and give a report with a clear opinion regarding suspending the holding of the special general meeting by 16:30 hours on the same day. It was pointed out that on the very same day, that is, 19.03.2019, the District Registrar forwarded the report to the Collector, Mehsana, opining that by virtue of item No.4 of the agenda changes are to be made in accordance with the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and the society would be required to work under the control of the Central Registrar and the laws applicable to the State Cooperative Societies would not be applicable and the present area of operation is to be changed and would include Gujarat and Rajasthan. Considering the number of members of the society and its turnover, it would be an effective decision. It would also affect the other Milk Societies in the State. While the other agenda items do not have any effect, items No. 3 and 4 would have long standing effect and appear to be issues which would affect the voters. It is further stated that the audit of the first petitioner Union till 2016-17 is available. Considering the audit entries, in 2016-17 the society has been given Government aid of Rs.85.77 lakh for bulk coolers for societies, and considering the annual report for 2017-18, NDDB grant/subsidy of Rs.18.25 crores has been received. Thus, since the society receives cooperative aid, he is of the opinion that the code of conduct would be applicable. It was further pointed out that on the very same day, that is, 19.03.2019, the Nodal Officer, Model Code of Conduct, addressed a communication to the Deputy District Election Officer inter alia stating that considering the entirety of facts, there is clear breach of section 123 of the Representation of People's Act and that clause 3.5 of Chapter 3 of the Model Code of Conduct would be applicable to the first petitioner Union. The learned counsel further drew the attention of the court to the communication dated 22.03.2019, of the District Election Officer, Mehsana, whereby he sought the permission of the Chief Election Officer, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, for cancelling the special general meeting of the first petitioner society. On the same day, that is, 22.03.2019, the Section Officer, Officer of Chief Election Officer, Gujarat State addressed a communication to the Collector and District Election Officer, informing him that approval had been granted to suspend/postpone the special general meeting of the first petitioner Union which was to be held on 24.03.2019. It was also pointed out that on the very same day, that is, on 22.03.2019, the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mehsana, informed the Chairman/Managing Director of the first petitioner society to suspend/postpone the meeting which was to be held on 24.03.2019. It was submitted that sequence of events that have taken place in this case, gives indication that the powers have not been exercised by the concerned authorities for the purpose for which they are vested in them. 5.2 It was submitted that clause 3.5 of Chapter 3 of the Model Code of Conduct has no applicability to the first petitioner Union and that in any case, assuming for the sake of argument that clause 3.5 of the Model Code of Conduct applies to the first petitioner Union; even then, such Code is essentially to stop the Government from using the organizations under its control to influence the voters in their favour and that there was nothing in the agenda items which would amount to violation of the Model Code of Conduct. 5.3 Reference was also made to the provisions of section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 which provides for “Major Corrupt Practices” to submit that the same would have no applicability to the facts of the present case, despite which the District Nodal Officer, MCC has opined that there is a clear breach thereof. 5.4 It was submitted that consistently these three directors have adopted ways and means to stay the general body meeting from time to time and that the State authorities have taken action pursuant to their complaint. 5.4 It was submitted that consistently these three directors have adopted ways and means to stay the general body meeting from time to time and that the State authorities have taken action pursuant to their complaint. It was submitted that the sequence of events in which the action has been taken namely that on 19.03.2019 itself, within the span of a day, reports are called for and received from different authorities, and immediately thereafter, approval of the Chief Election Officer is sought on the 22nd of March, 21st March being a holiday, and on the same day, such approval is granted by the Chief Election Officer and immediately on the very same day such decision is conveyed to the first petitioner Union by the District Registrar, shows that the action taken is not bona fide and that such decision has been taken without considering the fact the immense prejudice caused to the first petitioner Union on account of suspending the meeting as all arrangements had been made for as many as 2000 to 3000 persons who were to attend the same. It was submitted that holding of meeting of a co-operative society cannot be said to be a breach of the Model Code of Conduct, and hence, the first petitioner Union should be permitted to hold its meeting in terms of the reliefs prayed for in the petition. 6. Vehemently opposing the petition, Mr. Sahil Shah, learned advocate for the first respondent, referred to clause 3.5 of Chapter 3 of Model Code of Conduct to submit that provisions of the model code of conduct apply to all organizations/committees, corporations/ commissions etc. It was submitted that co-operative societies would fall within the ambit of the expression “corporation” and hence, the Model Code of Conduct is also applicable to them. It was submitted that the Election Officers are required to see that public funds are not misused for the purpose of influencing the voters. It was contended that the blanket submission that the Model Code of Conduct will not apply to co-operative societies is not correct, more so, when the co-operative is funded by the State/Central or any Government body. It was submitted that in the present case what is sought to be done is to restrain the first petitioner Union in misusing the public funds. It was submitted that in the present case what is sought to be done is to restrain the first petitioner Union in misusing the public funds. 6.1 The attention of the Court was invited to the newspaper report annexed at Annexure VI and VII to the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent, to submit the first petitioner Union had taken a decision to cut off relations with the Milk Federation and was going to pass a resolution in the meeting for adopting the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, which would have far reaching effects and would have a long term impact on approximately 3,81,100 milk producers who are also voters and would further impact other districts of the State of Gujarat as well, and would therefore, be in violation of the Code of Conduct as the first petitioner Union has received funds from NDDB. 6.2 Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 659 , for the proposition that although in law, the promises made in election manifesto cannot be construed as corrupt practice under section 123 of the Representation of People's Act, the reality cannot be ruled out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people. It shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree. The court noted the stand of the Election Commission that the promise of freebies at the government costs disturbs the level playing field and vitiates the electoral process. The Court observed that the Election Commission, in order to ensure a level playing field between the contesting parties and candidates in elections and also in order to see that the purity of the election process does not get vitiated, as in past been, issuing instructions under the Model Code of Conduct. The fountainhead of the powers under which the Commission issues these orders is Article 324 of the Constitution, which mandates the Commission to hold free and fair elections. It is equally imperative to acknowledge that the Election Commission cannot issue such orders if the subject matter of the order of the Commission is covered by a legislative measure. The fountainhead of the powers under which the Commission issues these orders is Article 324 of the Constitution, which mandates the Commission to hold free and fair elections. It is equally imperative to acknowledge that the Election Commission cannot issue such orders if the subject matter of the order of the Commission is covered by a legislative measure. 6.3 It was submitted that the Election Commission is duty bound to ensure purity of the elections and hence, if any action is taken by any organization/corporation receiving public funds, which has an impact on the voters, it can step in and prevent the election process from being polluted. 6.4 Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harbans Singh Jalal v. Union of India, 1997 SCC Online P&H 766, wherein, the Court held thus: “19. It is the common case that Election Commission is duty bound to ensure free and fair election. For the said purpose, Election Commission is clothed with the powers emanating from Article 324 of the Constitution. According to their lordships of the Supreme Court ( (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851) Constitution has made comprehensive provision in Article 324 to take care of surprise situations. Their lordships observed,.... “The Constitution contemplates a free and fair election and vests comprehensive responsibilities of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. This responsibility may cover powers, duties and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, depending on the circumstances.” 20. Goswami, J., in his concurring judgment in that decision observed... “The Commission may be required to cope with some situation which may not be provided for in the enacted laws and the rules. That seems, to be the raison d'etre for the opening clause in Article 327 and 328 which leaves the exercise of powers under Article 324 operative and effective when it is reasonably called for in a vacuous area. There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the Election Commission will have to conform to the existing laws and rules in exercising its powers and performing its manifold duties for the conduct of free and fair elections.” 21. In A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar V. George Mascrene, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 619 their lordships stated that the principle of purity of election must have its way. In A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar V. George Mascrene, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 619 their lordships stated that the principle of purity of election must have its way. The Election Commission is not only to see that free and fair election is to be held, but the purity of election should also be observed. What is meant by purity of election? According to us, it means the election should not only be free from corrupt practices but also free from evil practices. In Ghasi Ram V. Dal Singh, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1191, Hidayatullah, J., (as his lordship then was), observed, --- “Election is something which must be conducted fairly. To arrange to spend money on the eve of elections in different constituencies, although for general public good, is when all is said and done an evil practice, even if it may not be corrupt practice. The dividing line between an evil practice and a corrupt practice is a very thin one. It should be understood that energy to do public good should be used not on the eve of elections but much earlier and that even slight evidence might change this evil practice into corrupt practice. Payments from discretionary grants on the eve of elections should be avoided.” 22. From this statement of law, it is evident that activities on the eve of election should also be for the conduct of a free and fair election. “Eve of election” can only be the period prior to the date of notification of election. By the date of notification, the process of election starts. It is not with reference to the date after process of commencement of election, their lordships referred to the period “on the eve of election'. So, according to us, during the eve of election also, the Election Commission should ensure that nothing which tends to interfere with the conduct of free and fair election, takes place. It is not with reference to the date after process of commencement of election, their lordships referred to the period “on the eve of election'. So, according to us, during the eve of election also, the Election Commission should ensure that nothing which tends to interfere with the conduct of free and fair election, takes place. Viewed in this light, we are of the considered view that Election Commission should take necessary steps for conduct of free and fair election even before the date of the issue of the notification.” 6.5 It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the first petitioner Union being governed by the Model Code of Conduct and as items No. 3 and 4 of the agenda notice were likely to influence a large number of milk producers who are also voters, the first respondent has rightly restrained the first petitioner society from holding the meeting on 24.03.2019. It was submitted that in any case, since the first petitioner society is governed by the Model Code of Conduct, it having received the funds from the State Government/NDDB it was obliged to seek the permission of the Election Officer prior to holding such meeting. It was submitted that the meeting is only postponed and it is always open for the first petitioner Union to hold such meeting after the period during which the Model Code of Conduct is in force is over. Insofar as the sequence of events leading to the passing of the impugned order and the speed with which the authorities have acted, Mr. Shah submitted that the respondents were required to act promptly because once the meeting is held, there would be a breach of Model Code of Conduct and such situation cannot be reversed. 7. In the backdrop of the above facts and contentions, the first question which arises for consideration is whether the Model Code of Conduct would be applicable to the first petitioner Union. On behalf of the respondent, reliance has been placed upon clause 3.5 of Chapter 3 of the Manual on Model Code of Conduct, which reads as under: “3.5 Who are covered under Model Code: The provisions of Mode Code apply to all organizations/committees, corporations/commissions etc. funded wholly or partially by the Central Govt. or any State Govt. On behalf of the respondent, reliance has been placed upon clause 3.5 of Chapter 3 of the Manual on Model Code of Conduct, which reads as under: “3.5 Who are covered under Model Code: The provisions of Mode Code apply to all organizations/committees, corporations/commissions etc. funded wholly or partially by the Central Govt. or any State Govt. like the Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee, DDA, Electricity Regulatory Commissions, Jal Boards, Transport Corporations, any other development authority etc. Any action in contravention of the provisions contained in Model Code including any publication of its advertisements by them highlighting their achievements or announcing new subsidies, tariffs or schemes would attract the provisions of Model Code and tantamount to violation of the same.” 7.1 On a plain reading of the clause 3.5 together with the provisions of the other chapters of the Model Code of Conduct, more particularly Chapter 5 thereof, it is evident that the intention is to cover those organizations/committees, corporations/commissions etc., funded wholly or partially by the central government or any state government who carry on any developmental activities on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government. This is manifest from the words that follow “all organizations/committees, corporations/commissions etc. funded wholly or partially by the Central Govt. or any State Govt.” viz. “like the Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee, DDA, Electricity Regulatory Commissions, Jal Boards, Transport Corporations, any other development authority etc.”, which are authorities that carry on developmental works on behalf of the Central or State Government. Thus, it is development authorities which are brought within the ambit of the Model Code of Conduct and a co-operative society like the petitioner per se is not a development authority so as to fall within the ambit of clause 3.5. The reason for bringing development authorities funded by the Central Government or the State Government within the ambit of the Code of Conduct is quite evident, namely that these are the authorities which carry on the development activities on behalf of the Central/State Government and, therefore, if during the operation of Model Code of Conduct such organizations/committees, corporations/commissions etc. carry out any development activities, it would be likely to influence the voters. carry out any development activities, it would be likely to influence the voters. However, insofar as co-operative societies are concerned, on a plain reading of clause 3.5 of the Code of Conduct, it is evident that unless such society is funded wholly or partially by the Central Government or the State Government and is carrying on development work on their behalf it would not be governed by the Model Code of Conduct during the routine course of its business. On behalf of the first respondent, strong reliance has been placed upon the report submitted that by the second respondent-District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mehsana to the Election Officer, wherein, it has been stated that in the audit report of the first petitioner society of 2016-17 it is seen that the petitioner society had received Rs.85.17 lakh for purchase of bulk coolers for its members by way of Government aid and in the year 2017-18, it had received Rs.18.25 crore from the NDDB by way of grant/subsidy, and that since the petitioner society has received co-operative aid, the Model Code of Conduct would be applicable to the first petitioner society. As already noted herein above, clause 3.5 of the Manual on Model Code of Conduct applies to development authorities which are funded wholly or partially by the Central Government/State Government and carry on development activities on their behalf. In the opinion of this court, the receipt of some aid by the first petitioner society in the year 2016-17 for bulk purchase of coolers or receipt of some subsidy from NDDB in the year 2017-18, cannot be equated with Central/State Government funding as envisaged in clause 3.5 of the Model Code of Conduct and hence, the first petitioner Union would not be governed by the Model Code of Conduct. 8. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Model Code of Conduct applies to the first petitioner Union, what is then required to be examined is whether holding of a meeting on 24.03.2019 to discuss agenda items issued on 08.03.2019 can be said to be in violation of the Model Code of Conduct. The respondents have found two items, viz., items No. 3 and 4 to be objectionable and hence it may be germane to refer to the said items which as translated into English read thus : “3. In the matter of amendment of bye-law No.35(1)(a)(1) (2) of the Union; 4. The respondents have found two items, viz., items No. 3 and 4 to be objectionable and hence it may be germane to refer to the said items which as translated into English read thus : “3. In the matter of amendment of bye-law No.35(1)(a)(1) (2) of the Union; 4. In the matter of amending the bye-laws in terms of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002” On a plain reading of the two contentious agenda items, it is apparent that both the items relate to amendments of the bye laws of the first petitioner Union, which have nothing to do with developmental activities nor do they relate to distributing freebies so as to influence the voters. On fails to understand as to how amendment of the bye-laws of the first petitioner Union would have an impact on the voters as contemplated under the Model Code of Conduct. Besides, at best, if the respondents found two agenda items to be objectionable, discussion on those two items could have been suspended, but there was no reason to suspend the entire meeting and thereby causing immense prejudice and hardship to the first petitioner Union and the persons who were to participate in the meeting. 9. Moreover, having regard to the manner in which the respondent authorities have approached the issue namely on 16.03.2019, a representation is received by the District Registrar from Mehsana Jilla Dudh Utpadak Hit Rakshak Samiti, 16th March being a Saturday and 17th March being a Sunday and therefore, a holiday. On 19th March, 2019 all the authorities swung into action. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies writes to the Collector on 19.03.2019 informing him to take action in respect of meeting to be held on 24.03.2019 by the first petitioner society. On the same day, that is, on 19.03.2019 at 13:00 hours, the Collector, Mehsana addresses communications by email to the Deputy District Election Officer/Nodal MCC/District Registrar Mehsana, to obtain a detailed report from the District Registrar Mehsana regarding nature of meeting, agenda items, standing orders in this regard issued from time to time and his clear opinion keeping in view the instructions contained in the circular issued by GAD (Elections) dated 10.3.2019 for implementation of the Model Code of Conduct and to furnish a report by 17:00 hours on the same day. On the very same day, the Deputy District Election Officer addresses a communication to the Nodal Officer, MCC and the District Registrar, Mehsana stating that the Mehsana Jilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Hit Rakshak Samiti had made a representation to suspend the holding of meeting of the first petitioner society and in pursuance thereof to consider the agenda of the meeting and the instructions issued from time to time by the District Registrar, Registrar, Co-operative Societies etc, and give a report with a clear opinion regarding suspending the holding of the special general meeting by 16:30 hours on the same day. On the very same day, that is, 19.03.2019, the District Registrar forwards the report to the Collector, Mehsana, opining that by virtue of item No.4 of the agenda changes are to be made in accordance with the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and the Union would be required to work under the control of the Central Registrar and the laws applicable to the State Cooperative Societies would not be applicable and the present area of operation is to be changed and would include Gujarat and Rajasthan; considering the number of members of the Union and its turnover, it would be an effective decision; it would also affect the other Milk Societies in the State. While the other agenda items do not have any effect, items No. 3 and 4 would have long standing effect and appears to be issues which would affect the voters; that the audit of the first petitioner society till 2016-17 is available; considering the audit entries, in 2016/17 the society has been given Government aid of Rs.85.77 lakh for bulk coolers for societies, and considering the annual report for 2017-18, NDDB grant/subsidy of Rs.18.25 crores has been received; thus, since the society receives cooperative aid, he is of the opinion that the Code of Conduct would be applicable. Again on the very same day, that is, 19.03.2019, the Nodal Officer, Model Code of Conduct, addresses a communication to the Deputy District Election Officer stating that by virtue of agenda items 3 and 4 of the special general meeting to be held on 24.3.2019 it appears that there is a clear breach of the provisions of the Model Code of Conduct; that by the reference letter benefit of membership of the Union is to be given to milk societies situated in Rajasthan and Haryana as well as for taking action against the custodian committee appointed by the State Government in the year 2015; considering the overall facts, as there is a clear breach of section 123 and as the organisations which receive aid from the Government cannot take policy decisions during the operation of the Code of Conduct; as the first petitioner Union is included under clause 3.5 of Chapter 3 of the Model Code of Conduct, there is a clear opinion to suspend the special general meeting. A perusal of the communication dated 19.03.2019 of the Collector, reveals that the same was sent at 13:00 hours calling upon for the report by 17:00 hours, therefore within a span of four hours, the concerned authorities were required to inquire and submit their reports. Surprisingly, all the authorities including the District Registrar were able to furnish the report within a short period of time. A perusal of the report of the District Registrar indicates that he has gone through the audit reports of different years and has given his opinion within such a short span of time. 21.02.2019 was a public holiday, and on 22.03.2019, the District Election Officer, Mehsana has forwarded a detailed proposal to the Chief Election Officer seeking approval for postponing the special general meeting of the first petitioner Union. On the same day, the Chief Electoral Officer, Gandhinagar has given his approval which is conveyed to the Collector and District Election Officer through the Section Officer by a communication dated 22.03.2019. Immediately thereafter, on 22.03.2019, the impugned communication has been issued to the first petitioner society postponing the meeting which was to be held on 24.03.2019. On the same day, the Chief Electoral Officer, Gandhinagar has given his approval which is conveyed to the Collector and District Election Officer through the Section Officer by a communication dated 22.03.2019. Immediately thereafter, on 22.03.2019, the impugned communication has been issued to the first petitioner society postponing the meeting which was to be held on 24.03.2019. In the opinion of this Court, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the conduct of the respondents and the unduly prompt manner in which they have acted, gives clear indication that the powers exercised under the guise of implementation of the Model Code of Conduct have not be exercised for the purpose for which they are vested. As held hereinabove, the Model Code of Conduct clearly does not apply to the first petitioner Union. Moreover, the items No. 3 and 4 of the agenda items of the special general meeting that was to be held on 24.03.2019, cannot in any manner, be termed as violative of any of the provisions of the Model Code of Conduct. Under the circumstances, the impugned direction dated 22.03.2019 issued to the petitioner not to convene the special general meeting while the Model Code of Conduct is in force, cannot be sustained. 10. It may also be noted that while it has been argued that the impugned orders had been issued to prevent misuse public funds for influencing the voters, nothing has been pointed out as to how holding a special general meeting to discuss the agenda items would amount to misuse of public funds. 11. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that since the Model Code of Conduct applies to the first petitioner Union, it was required to obtain the prior permission of the Election Officer for the purpose of holding its special general meeting. 11. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that since the Model Code of Conduct applies to the first petitioner Union, it was required to obtain the prior permission of the Election Officer for the purpose of holding its special general meeting. In this regard reference may be made to Annexure – VI to the Model Code of Conduct and more particularly paragraph 10 thereof which provides for the types of activities which require prior permission of the Commission and includes in all six activities, like taking up new works and projects from discretionary funds; proposals for revival of sick PSU’s, governmental takeover of enterprises etc; fresh action of liquor vends; extension/expansion of area of operation of any existing project/scheme/programme; allocation of land to any entity by the Government; signing of MOU or agreement where the Government is a party; none of which envisage seeking prior permission for holding the special general meeting of a co-operative society. The contention that prior permission of the Election Commission was required for holding the special general meeting, therefore, does not merit acceptance. 12. For the forgoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly, allowed. The impugned communications dated 22.03.2019 of the first and second respondents herein, are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner Union is permitted to hold the Special General Body Meeting which had been postponed by virtue of the communication dated 22.03.2019, even during the period when the model code of conduct is in force. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.