JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.2019 in W.P.(C).No.15926 of 2019. The appellant, who was the petitioner therein is a member of the third respondent Co-operative Bank. He filed the writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and take immediate action on Ext.P3 and to remove the ineligible members included in the voters list furnished by the 3rd respondent before the commencement of the election process besides the following reliefs. He had also sought for the following reliefs:- (ii) command the 2nd respondent Election Commission to consider Ext.P4 and take appropriate action for rectifying the anomaly in the list of voters supplied by the 4th respondent society, for the purpose of ensuing election; (iii) declare that conducting of election to the committee of the society without rectifying the serious anomaly in the list of members and voters is illegal and arbitrary; (iv) command the 3rd respondent society to remove the ineligible persons from membership, before ensuing election. 2. The learned Single Judge heard the learned Standing Counsel for the State Co-operative Election Commission viz., the second respondent, as well and recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Election Commission that election was notified on 12.6.2019 and the polling date was fixed there under as 14.7.2019. After recording the said facts and considering the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the following lines :- “I further leave full liberty to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15926/2019 to invoke Rule 35(A)(4) of KCS Rules and the provisions of Rule 16(4) of the KCS Rules, before the competent Authority, if he has any complaint against any particular individual/s as regards their inclusion in the voters list or their primary membership in the Society as the case may be.” It is dissatisfied with and raising grievance against the judgment that the captioned appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent and also the learned Special Government Pleader. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the contentions on merits especially those raised with reference to Exts.P1 and P2. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the contentions on merits especially those raised with reference to Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is the true copy of booth wise details of the voters published by the Election Commission in connection with the general election to the Lok Sabha, 2019. Ext.P2 dated 4.6.2019 is a piece of information obtained by the appellant to a query made by him under the Right to Information Act. Stating that ineligible persons were enrolled as members of the third respondent-Bank and Form 6B Register is not maintained and contending against the continuation of election process without rectifying the anomaly in the membership before the election, the appellant submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 3.6.2019 before the first respondent. Since an election resolution was adopted by the third respondent and it was forwarded to the Election Commission, the appellant preferred Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent Election Commission. Essentially, it is the contention of the appellant that about 10000 ineligible persons were enrolled as members in the Bank illegally. It is also his contention that a proper electoral roll is a fundamental factor for election and if election is conducted without such a proper electoral roll, election itself would become a mockery. It is in such circumstances that he filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking the afore-extracted reliefs. As noticed hereinbefore, after considering such contentions and recording the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the aforementioned lines. 5. In the appeal, virtually, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions raised in the writ proceedings. It is his contention that Annexure-A4 would virtually support his contention regarding enrollment of ineligible persons as members of the third respondent-Bank and therefore, without removing them and then drawing proper electoral roll, a fair election cannot be conducted. It is also his contention that the provisions under Rule 16(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short' 'the KCS Rules) cast a duty upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to remove such ineligible members in accordance with the prescribed procedures to enable a democratic election and such an election would not be possible with the present electoral roll. It is also his contention that the provisions under Rule 16(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short' 'the KCS Rules) cast a duty upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to remove such ineligible members in accordance with the prescribed procedures to enable a democratic election and such an election would not be possible with the present electoral roll. He also submitted that a conjoint reading of the provisions under Rules 16(4) and 35A(4) of the Rules would reveal the legislative intention to conduct a free and fair election to a Co-operative Society. The nub of the contention of the appellant is that Annexure-A4 itself would reveal that after drawing proper electoral roll, a fair and proper election in a democratic manner could be conducted to the third respondent Bank and therefore, the election as per notification dated 12.6.2019 stated to be held on 14.7.2019 should be stayed. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent Bank submitted that it is legally permissible for the Electoral Officer to consider the objections raised against the preliminary voters list and to prepare a final list of members qualified to vote. In the same breath, it is submitted that consideration of objections and eligibility to vote of persons included in the preliminary voters list would be available to the Electoral Officer only before the publication of the final voters list. A perusal of Annexure-A4 would reveal that the Electoral Officer has already published final voters list, it is further contended. It is also his contention that in the case on hand, the Electoral Officer has already published the final voters list as early as on 24.6.2019 and there is no challenge against Annexure-A4. Though a perusal of Annexure-A4 at the first blush may suggest that no decision was taken on the objections against the preliminary voters list, a close scrutiny of the same would reveal otherwise. Though a perusal of Annexure-A4 at the first blush may suggest that no decision was taken on the objections against the preliminary voters list, a close scrutiny of the same would reveal otherwise. To fortify his contention, the learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the following recitals in Annexure-A4 which are virtually the conclusions arrived at by the Electoral Officer after hearing both sides and perusing the related files and registers of the Bank:- xxx xxx The contention of the learned Senior Counsel with reference to the afore extracted recitals from Annexure-A4 is that the decision to publish the final voters list is nothing but an outcome of such conclusions including the one that once a person is enrolled into membership, he should continue to be a member unless he is removed from the membership in accordance with law. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that after publishing final voters list, nominations were invited and responding to the same, the appellant had also filed nomination. After scrutiny, his nomination was also accepted and a list of 43 contesting candidates for election has already been published, it is further submitted. Since the election is stated to be held on 14.7.2019 and in that regard, final voters list was published and a list of contesting candidates was also published, an interference with election is not invited especially in view of the fact that the other persons whose nominations were already accepted and included in the list of candidates are not parties to the appeal. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission submitted that the exercise of looking into the verity of the allegations regarding continuation of ineligible persons in the voters list as members of the Bank is a time consuming one and it would be impossible to commence and conclude such exercise within the time schedule fixed as per the election notification and the objection against the preliminary voters list could not be considered at this stage. The contention is that when that be the prima facie view of the Electoral Officer, for the purpose of conducting a fair and proper election in a democratic manner, that too, in accordance with the time schedule under Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules, election is bound to be postponed and it could be conducted only after a proper electoral roll is drawn after considering the objections against the preliminary voters list. The learned Government Pleader virtually endorsed the stand of the Election Commission. 8. For considering the rival contentions, it is relevant to refer to certain decisions cited before us by both sides. To canvass the position that even at this stage interference is possible, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Devassy v. Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies ( 1976 KLT 40 ) and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh ( AIR 1980 SC 1612 ). Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others ((2001 KHC 1667) and in Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath and others ( ( 2016 (2) KHC 33 ). The decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajitha Kumari and Others v. Priyadarsini Vanitha Coir Vyavasaya Co-opertive Society (CVCS) Ltd., Cherthala and Others ( 2018 (3) KLT 727 ) is also relied on. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Election Commission relied on the decision of this Court in Mohanachandran Nair v. State Co-operative Election Commission ( 2013 (3) KLT 506 ) to contend that the Election Commission got a power to adjourn elections. It is submitted that Section 28-B of the KCS Act empowers the Election Commission to adjourn the election in appropriate circumstances. 9. A perusal of the impugned judgment itself would reveal that the learned Single Judge has apprised of the fact that the notification for election was published on 12.6.2019 and going by the notification election is to be conducted on 14.7.2019. The penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment would reveal that the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission in that regard were recorded by the learned Single Judge. The penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment would reveal that the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission in that regard were recorded by the learned Single Judge. It is after taking into account such aspects that the learned Single Judge left full liberty to the petitioner/appellant herein to invoke Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules, in case he got complaint against the inclusion of any particular individual/individuals in the voters list or their primary membership in the Society. Along with the appeal memorandum the appellant/writ petitioner has produced Annexures A1 to A5. As noticed hereinbefore, Annexure-A4 itself would reveal that subsequent to the impugned judgment certain persons named therein raised objections against the preliminary voters list before the Electoral Officer appointed to conduct election to the third respondent Bank. It would also reveal that the persons who raised objections had appeared and raised their objections before the Electoral Officer. After considering the objections the Electoral Officer formed an opinion that the main objection is with respect to the inclusion of 1255 voters on any of the following grounds:- (1) 'Not in the station' (2) 'Given in marriage' (3) 'died' (4) 'Not attained majority'. In other words, according to the Electoral Officer, it is assigning such reasons that the objectors require exclusion of such persons on the ground that they are ineligible to continue as members of the Society. Obviously, the Electoral Officer took the stand that without hearing those persons who according to the appellant are ineligible to continue as members they could not be removed from the voters' list. In respect of persons who are allegedly no more the death certificates of such persons are also to be verified. He has also held that once a person is admitted as a member of a society till he is removed from the membership in accordance with law he will continue as its member and it is the normal rule. Such a member/members cannot be removed from the electoral roll till disqualification is established. It is also evident that on consideration of the objections the Electoral Officer also found that in respect of 284 persons included in the list appended with the complaint it is not specified as to what is the ineligibility or disqualification of such persons. Such a member/members cannot be removed from the electoral roll till disqualification is established. It is also evident that on consideration of the objections the Electoral Officer also found that in respect of 284 persons included in the list appended with the complaint it is not specified as to what is the ineligibility or disqualification of such persons. After considering the materials and the nature of the allegations when the Electoral Officer reached such conclusions and thereafter published the final voters list for the purpose of conducting election on the date fixed as per the notification issued by the Election Commission how it can be said that he had not bestowed his attention to the objections in the complaint merely because he had stated that finding out veracity of the allegations is a time consuming process. In such circumstances, how can it be said that ‘the exercise to look into the objections regarding the ineligibility of 1255 persons is a time consuming process and it could not be completed within the schedule under the election notification' is the only reason that constrained the Electoral Officer to publish the final voters list. With respect to his conclusion at Sl.No.7 in Annexure-A4 the question is whether it is legal or in accordance with the settled position of law. In Porinju v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies ( 2009 (4) KLT 105 ) this Court considered similar question. True that, it was considered in the light of the provisions under Rule 16(3) and Rule 16(4) of the KCS Rules. This Court held that once a person is granted membership in a Society even though illegally till his removal following the procedures laid down in Rule 16(3) or Rule 16(4) of the KCS Rules his membership would continue. True that, the power of the Electoral Officer to remove persons from the preliminary voters list is available only under Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules. Still, we do think that the conclusion arrived as above by the Electoral Officer that persons who are already enrolled as members would continue to be members till they are removed in accordance with law and therefore, they could not be removed from the voters list, can only be held as legal in view of the principle laid in the said decision. In the case on hand, the fact is that after arriving at conclusions as given in Annexure-A4 including the one as above he had published the final voters list. We may hasten to add that we shall not be understood to have made any observation regarding the eligibility or ineligibility of any one of the persons included in the voters list. That certainly is a matter to be looked into by the competent authority at the appropriate stage with reference to the relevant provisions and the proven facts. But, the fact is that a final voters list has already been published and Annexure-A4 would reveal the reasons that persuaded the Electoral Officer to publish a final voters list. True that, in Annexure-A4 he has also expressed his difficulty to look into the allegations rather, objections regarding the inclusion of ineligible persons in the voters list within the time available in accordance with the election notification. But, as held hereinbefore, in the light of the decision in Porinju's case (supra) the understanding of the position of law on that aspect by the Electoral Officer cannot be held as irregular or illegal in view of his observations rather, conclusions reached after hearing the parties and perusing the related files and registers of the Bank. Hence, the question is whether when once final voters list is published and date of election was already published whether this Court would be justified in interfering with the election process? 10. The aforesaid question can be considered in the light of the decisions referred hereinbefore. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner relied on the decision in Devassy's case (supra) as also the decision of the Apex Court in Surjeet Singh's case (supra). In Devassy's case (supra) this Court held that proper electoral roll is a fundamental factor before the election is actually held and if the complaint is that no such roll has been prepared in accordance with the Rules, this Court could certainly step in even before the election is actually held and prevent the holding of the election on the basis of an imperfect electoral roll exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Surjeet Singh's case (supra) the allegation was that electoral roll was prepared which was void and ultra vires. Objection was also raised that the petitioners therein preferred to challenge the electoral roll only after the election. In Surjeet Singh's case (supra) the allegation was that electoral roll was prepared which was void and ultra vires. Objection was also raised that the petitioners therein preferred to challenge the electoral roll only after the election. The Apex Court held therein that notwithstanding the fact that the contesting respondents made challenge against the electoral roll only after the election, they could do so if it was prepared on the basis of a rule which was void and ultra vires, taking into account the gravity of infraction of law in the preparation of the list. Thus, there can be no doubt an interference with an election in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is permissible, but such interference can only be in exceptional circumstances. Now, we will refer to the decisions relied on by the 3rd respondent. The Apex Court rendered the decision on the question of interference with election once the election process has started in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami's case (supra) as also in Shaji K. Joseph's case (supra). 11. The Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules with respect to the conduct of election to societies is virtually a complete code in itself. The term ‘election' will take in the entire election process beginning from the stage of preparation of the preliminary voters' list till the declaration of the result of election. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami's case (supra) this question was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajitha Kumari's case (supra). Taking note of the fact that the rules under the societies are complete code in itself dealing with the entire process of election culminating in declaration of the result of the election, this Court held that even if there is breach of rules or there is non-compliance of certain mandatory provisions of rules while preparing the electoral roll, it could be challenged under Rule 81(d)(iv) of KCS Rules by means of an Election Petition. Certainly, a dispute regarding the election could be gone into by the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70 of the KCS Act invoking the power under Section 69 of the KCS Act. Certainly, a dispute regarding the election could be gone into by the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70 of the KCS Act invoking the power under Section 69 of the KCS Act. In Shaji K. Joseph's case (supra) the Apex Court held that when process of election is started normally, election should not be interfered with and the Court should not interfere with the election process for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the Courts, no election would be conducted in accordance with the schedule and at the same time, if election is conducted in accordance with rules and after the declaration of the election a remedy is available to challenge the same. In Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami's case (supra) the Apex Court held that preparation of voters' list is an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society. It was held therein thus:- “12. In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll is being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of returned candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the election tribunal.” In short, in view of the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court in Shaji K. Joseph's case and Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami's case (supra) it would reveal that merely because of illegality in the matter of preparation of electoral roll including inclusion of ineligible persons is alleged and the materials before the Electoral Officer are insufficient to determine the question of ineligibility of members to remain as voters courts would not be justified in interfering with the election process once it is started because such illegality, if established later, could be dealt with appropriately in an Election Petition. In the case on hand, the fact is that Annexure-A4 has not been under challenge. When the fact is that such alleged ineligible persons are not at all removed from the membership and also from the preliminary voters list and taking note of Annexure-A4, we are of the view that it will only be just and proper to permit the election go on based on the final voters list already published. At the same time, taking note of the nature of the allegations we are of the view that it is only just and proper to direct the Returning Officer to ensure that votes of 1255 members included in the final voters list who are allegedly ineligible and against whom already complaints have been made, are put in a separate box and after the election in accordance with law the result can be published. Needless to say that grievance with respect to the election can appropriately be taken up by the parties, in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of as above.