JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition was originally listed today to consider the grant of interim orders, as has been sought for by the petitioners. However, pointing out that elections to the Managing committee of the 6th respondent-Apex Society are scheduled on 26/06/2019, a request was made at the Bar by the various counsel for the respondents that, if this Court is so inclined, the writ petition itself may be heard and disposed of finally. Since the petitioners also supported this course, I proceeded to hear the matter finally. 2. The singular allegation of the petitioners in this case, who are stated to be the delegates chosen by the various Primary Societies entitled to vote in the elections to the Managing Committee of the Apex Society, namely, the 6th respondent Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for short), is against Ext.P3 election notification, issued by the 3rd respondent-State Co-operative Election Commission, whereby only the persons belonging to a particular Revenue District have been permitted to vote to elect the member from the said District. The petitioners, referring to Ext.P1 Byelaws of the Bank, submit that the Board of Directors of the said Bank are stipulated to contain the following numbers, as is available from Clause 28 thereof:- 28. The Board shall consist of the following Directors namely: 1. One member for each revenue district elected by and from among the delegates of share holding primary banks provided however that where a share holding primary bank has area of operations in more than one District the delegate of such bank shall seek election from the district where the head quarters of the bank is situated. (a) Three woman member elected by and from among the delegates of share holding Primary banks. (b) One member belonging to SC/ST elected by and from among the delegates of share holding Primary Banks. 3. The petitioners thus assert that the term of Ext.P3 election notification, restricting a delegate, belonging to a particular Revenue District, to vote solely for the purpose of electing a member to a District is illegal and unlawful, since the elections are not conducted for each Revenue District as separate constituencies but for the whole State. 3. The petitioners thus assert that the term of Ext.P3 election notification, restricting a delegate, belonging to a particular Revenue District, to vote solely for the purpose of electing a member to a District is illegal and unlawful, since the elections are not conducted for each Revenue District as separate constituencies but for the whole State. They, therefore, pray that the impugned restriction in Ext.P3 be vacated or struck down by this Court, so as to enable all the delegates to vote for all the members to various Revenue Districts. 4. I have heard Shri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri.Arun Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-State Co operative Election Commission; Shri.M.Sasindran, the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 and the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.C.S.Sheeja, appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 5. Shri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel, began his submissions by assertively referring to the afore extracted portions of the Byelaws and contending that going by Section 28(1) of the Kerala Co operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act' for short) and Rule 35A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules' for short), the Election Commission cannot vary from the specific stipulations contained in the Byelaws with respect to the area/constituencies for elections to the Board of Directors of a Society. He says that, in the instant case, since Ext.P1 Byelaws are unequivocally clear that every delegate will have the right to vote for every member of each constituency, the reservation in Ext.P3 election notification, that they will confine their votes for election of the member of an individual Revenue District is untenable and unconstitutional. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P3, to this extent, be struck down appropriately by this Court. 6. In answer to the afore submissions of Shri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel, Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission, submits that Ext.P3 notification has been issued by his client with the bonafide intent of purposively interpreting the Byelaws and to ensure that the best candidate, who is aware of the specific requirements and needs of each Revenue District, is elected. He says that even going by the afore extracted portion of Ext.P1 Byelaws, one member will have to be elected for each Revenue District and therefore, that only the delegates from that Revenue District will be aware of the capacity and credentials of the candidates seeking election from each of the Districts, vis-a- vis the requirements and needs of the locality. He asserts that Ext.P1 Byelaws can only be read in that manner and therefore, that the Election Commission was right in issuing Ext.P3 in the manner it is presently worded. 7. Shri.M.Sasindran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7, adopts most of the submissions of Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan as afore, adding that it is in the highest traditions of the democratic ethos that the Election Commission has now issued Ext.P3, so that the members to the Board of Directors of the Apex Society can be chosen by well informed and knowledgeable delegates, because only a delegate belonging to a particular Revenue District will be best suited to elect a member for that District. 8. Smt.C.S.Sheeja, the learned Senior Government Pleader, also was more or less in affirmation of the submissions made by Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan and Shri.M.Sasindran as recorded above, and she supplemented it by saying that there is no prejudice to the petitioners even if the elections are conducted in the manner as is stated in Ext.P3 notification. She says on the contrary, that it will only help the Apex Society, since a delegate belonging to a particular Revenue District will be able to vote for the candidate from that District in a most effective manner. She then went on to say that this becomes more explicit from the fact that the afore extracted portions of Ext.P1 Byelaws clearly mandate that where a shareholding Primary Bank has area of operations in more than one District, the delegate of such bank shall seek election from the District where the headquarters of such bank is situated. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P3 be allowed to operate without any interdiction. 9. I have considered the various submissions made as afore very carefully, but I must say that I find in favour of the petitioners, for the reasons as I will presently state. 10. There is no case for any of the respondents that the constituency for election of the Board of Directors of the Apex Society is individual Revenue Districts. 9. I have considered the various submissions made as afore very carefully, but I must say that I find in favour of the petitioners, for the reasons as I will presently state. 10. There is no case for any of the respondents that the constituency for election of the Board of Directors of the Apex Society is individual Revenue Districts. On the contrary, it is expressly conceded by them that the State has to be taken as a single Unit/Constituency as per Ext.P1 Byelaws. In fact, this is explicit from the fact that the voters list, namely, Exts.P4 and P5, are also for the State as a unit and not for Revenue Districts as individual units. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the relevant constituency is the whole of State though one member from each Revenue District will have to be elected. 11. Viewed from that background, I am to examine whether the stipulations in Clause 28 of Ext.P1 Byelaws, extracted afore, would permit the election of a member to a particular Revenue District to be confined from among the delegates belonging to that District alone. I am afraid that it can never be so even on a plain reading of the afore extracted Byelaws and this is more so because, contrary to the submissions of Smt.C.S.Sheeja, the fact remains that the Byelaws provide that where a Primary Bank has operations in more than one District, the delegate of such bank shall seek election only from the headquarters where such bank is situated. This provision cannot be interpreted in any other manner and cannot be employed to impair the voting rights of the delegates by confining such rights solely to elect the member from his/her home Revenue District. This is impermissible going by Section 28(1) of the KCS Act and Rule 35A of the KCS Rules, which gives full primacy to the Byelaws of the Society, while the Election Commission conducts elections. 12. In other words, no constituency which is not provided in the Byelaws, except statutorily mandated, shall be incorporated in the election notification by the Election Commission; and to that extent, the term in Ext.P3 notification, if it is intended to ensure that only the delegates belonging to a particular Revenue District shall have the right to elect the member of that District, will certainly obtain no support in law and will require to be struck down. 13. That said, however, since I am told that the elections to the Apex Society is scheduled on 26/06/2019, I do not deem it appropriate at this stage to, in any manner, cause interdiction to Ext.P3 notification, because its corollary and obvious impact would be the termination of the election process now underway; and I therefore, deem it better to read down the provisions therein to mean that every delegate shall have the right to vote for each constituency and not merely being confined to vote for the member of their home Revenue District. 14. It is so declared and I, axiomatically, direct the Co-operative Election Commission and the 5th respondent- Returning Officer to conduct the elections in such a manner, without restricting the voting rights of any delegate contrary to Ext.P1 Byelaws. This writ petition is thus ordered.