JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by Pallichal Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Limited No.T.677 seeking to set aside Ext.P2 notification and to declare that the action of the Chief Election Commissioner cancelling the election to the Managing Committee of petitioner-Bank two days prior to the proposed date of polling for the reasons stated in Ext.P2, is illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner-Bank is a major Service Co-operative Bank in Thiruvananthapuram District, which is being managed by a Board of Directors. The term of the Board was to expire on 01.07.2017. The election notification was published as per Ext.P1 dated 02.05.2017. The preliminary voters list was published on 11.05.2017. The last date for receiving objection in respect of the voters list was 18.05.2017. The final voters list was published on 20.05.2017. The aspiring candidates had to submit their nominations on 29.05.2017. The polling date was fixed as 18.06.2017. 3. While the election process was so going on, 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 notification withdrawing Ext.P1 election notification. In Ext.P2, it has been stated that certain members have made complaints to the effect that Ext.P1 notification was not published in dailies having wide circulation in the area. The 2nd respondent stated that she has enquired with the Electoral Officer and the Bank Secretary and inspected the documents and has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie truth in the complaint. On that basis, the 2nd respondent held that Rule 35A(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, was not adhered to by publishing Ext.P1 notification in two Malayalam dailies namely, Kerala Kaumudi and Chandrika. The 2nd respondent further found that the Chandrika daily has only nominal circulation in the area in question and the notification was published in a local page of Kerala Kaumudi daily, which was not circulated in the area where the members of the petitioner-Bank generally reside. Accordingly, Ext.P1 election notification has been withdrawn by the 2nd respondent. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 defended the writ petition by filing counter affidavits. According to the counter affidavits of respondents 1 and 2, in the Kerala Kaumudi daily, the notification was published in the local page of Nedumangad Taluk. The petitioner-Bank is situated in Neyyattinkara Taluk about 50 Km. away from Nedumangad Taluk. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 defended the writ petition by filing counter affidavits. According to the counter affidavits of respondents 1 and 2, in the Kerala Kaumudi daily, the notification was published in the local page of Nedumangad Taluk. The petitioner-Bank is situated in Neyyattinkara Taluk about 50 Km. away from Nedumangad Taluk. The Chandrika daily has only a minimum circulation in the area of operation of the petitioner-Bank. Several complaints were received by the Election Commission in this regard. The complaints were looked into and after hearing the Managing Director, the Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer in person, the Commissioner understood that the action of the Managing Director was illegal and the reasons stated in the complaints received, were genuine. 5. According to the 1st respondent, Rule 35A(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules mandates that the notification shall be published in two vernacular dailies having “wide circulation in the area”. But, the usual practice followed is that the State Co-operative Election Commission will authorise the Electoral Officer to publish the election notification. Here also, the State Co-operative Election Commission authorised the Electoral Officer to publish the same. However, the Electoral Officer, in turn, authorised the Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank to publish the same. The justification given in the counter affidavit for delegating this duty is that since the expense for the publication is to be met by the Bank, the Managing Director of the Bank was directed to publish the notification. But, the Managing Director published the notification in Kerala Kaumudi daily, which is circulated in the local area of Nedumangad Taluk, 50 Km. away from Neyyattinkara. This was improper and offended Rule 35A(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. According to the 1st respondent, the intention of the Bank is to evade or to avoid election. The basic requirement for the conduct of an election to a Society is to give awareness about the election scheduled well in advance among the voters. However, the Bank tried to evade this process by publishing election notification in newspaper editions circulated in another Taluk, instead of the petitioner-Bank's jurisdictional area. According to the 1st respondent, the voters of the petitioner-Bank had no idea about the date or details of the election which is proposed to be held on 18.06.2017. However, the Bank tried to evade this process by publishing election notification in newspaper editions circulated in another Taluk, instead of the petitioner-Bank's jurisdictional area. According to the 1st respondent, the voters of the petitioner-Bank had no idea about the date or details of the election which is proposed to be held on 18.06.2017. Ext.P2 order is, therefore, just and proper and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, contended the 1st respondent. 6. The 5th respondent, who is a member of the Society, got himself impleaded in this writ petition and objected to the prayers of the petitioner. According to the 5th respondent, the Society is having more than 15000 A Class members having voting right. Large number of such voters were not aware of the election notification since it was published only in two dailies. According to the 5th respondent, Chandrika daily is not a vernacular daily having wide circulation in the area. In the entire Neyyattinkara Taluk, only 300 papers are supplied and in Pallichal Panchayat, the newspaper does not have any agency at all. According to the 5th respondent, Chandrika newspaper is a mouthpiece of a political party, which does not have effective unit in the area. In so far as Kerala Kaumudi daily is concerned, it is having four different local pages for four different areas under Thiruvananthapuram edition. The election notification was published only in the local page of Kerala Kaumudi having circulation in Nedumangad Taluk. The advertisement has not appeared in the other three local pages. According to the 5th respondent, 5000 members have been excluded from the voters list due to the faulty publication of Ext.P1 notification. 7. Some candidates, who submitted their nominations for the election, got themselves impleaded in this writ petition and were arrayed as respondents 6 to 9. According to respondents 6 to 9, the Electoral and Returning Officers being the representatives of the Election Commission, ought to have pointed out any defect in the election process immediately. In view of Rule 35A(3), it is the duty of the State Election Commission to notify the details of election in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area. According to respondents 6 to 9, these two dailies have wide circulation in the area. In view of Rule 35A(3), it is the duty of the State Election Commission to notify the details of election in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area. According to respondents 6 to 9, these two dailies have wide circulation in the area. Since the notification has already been published under the authority of the Election Commission on 10.05.2017 in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area, Ext.P2 order cancelling the election notification is highly arbitrary and amounts to colourable exercise of power. 8. I have perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 9. The counsel for the petitioner-Bank contended that in view of the introduction of Article 243ZK of the Constitution of India, it is the constitutional mandate on the Election Commission to conduct election to the managing committees of Co-operative entities before the expiry of the tenure of the existing Committees. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that under Rule 35A(3), it is the duty of the State Election Commission to notify the details of election in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that apart from publication of the notification in two vernacular dailies, the notification was also affixed in the notice board of the head office and all the Branches of the Bank, with all particulars and relevant details. Since it is the duty of the State Co-operative Election Commission to publish the notification, the Election Commission cannot be heard to contend that Ext.P1 notification published is bad for violating Rule 35A(3). 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further brought to the notice of this Court Circular No.9/2012 dated 10.07.2012 issued by the State Co-operative Election Commissioner. This Circular gives the guidelines for conduct of election to the Co-operative Societies in Kerala. In the said Circular, it has been specifically stated that the Election Commission shall publish the notification in two local newspapers having wide circulation in the area. The Circular further states that the Electoral Officer concerned shall give this notification to the dailies directly and the Electoral Officer shall make it clear as to in which newspapers the advertisements have to be given. 11. The Circular further states that the Electoral Officer concerned shall give this notification to the dailies directly and the Electoral Officer shall make it clear as to in which newspapers the advertisements have to be given. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the area of operation of the petitioner-Bank is in Pallichal which falls under Kattakkada Constituency and both the newspapers, namely Kerala Kaumudi and Chandrika, have wide circulation in the area. Therefore, Ext.P2 order of the Election Commission has to be set aside and the respondents should be directed to proceed with the election notified as per Ext.P1 from the stage at which it was stopped/cancelled, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. The learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 argued that the Election Commission has received a number of complaints as regards violation of Rule 35A(3). On enquiry with the Managing Director and the Electoral Officer and on perusal of documents, the Election Commission found that the complaints are genuine. Since there is violation of Rule 35A(3), materially affecting the electoral process, Ext.P2 was issued. Ext.P2 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The learned Government Pleader further argued based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6452/2017 and contended that when Rule 35A(3) is violated, election process will have to be stopped and fresh process should be started by publishing the election notification in compliance of Rule 35A(3). The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court gives no choice to the Election Commission. Since complaints were received and since the Election Commission was convinced on the basis of making due enquiry that the newspapers in which the election notification is published, have no wide circulation in the area in question, Ext.P2 was issued. Ext.P2 cannot be impugned on the grounds urged by the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent argued that he is a member of the Society and there are more than 12000 A Class members in the Society. Since the notification was not published in strict compliance of Rule 35A(3), large sections of members could not ensure that their names are included in the voters list. Similarly, a number of voters, who intended to contest the election, could not file nomination papers as they were not aware of the election notification. Since the notification was not published in strict compliance of Rule 35A(3), large sections of members could not ensure that their names are included in the voters list. Similarly, a number of voters, who intended to contest the election, could not file nomination papers as they were not aware of the election notification. Non-publication of the notification in any newspapers having substantial circulation in the area of operation of the Bank has resulted in undermining the democratic election process of the 1st respondent. The counsel for the 5th respondent argued that the Election Commission has no other choice than cancelling the election notification. Now that the tenure of the existing Board of Managing Committee already stands expired, this Court may direct to conduct fresh election issuing fresh election notification and publishing in any two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area, contended the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 14. On a perusal of the pleadings and relevant Rules in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, I find that it is the primary duty of the State Election Commission to notify the details of election in respect of a Society, in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area of operation of the Society. The due conduct of election to the Co-operative Societies before the expiry of the tenure of the Managing Committees is a constitutional mandate as per Article 243ZK of the Constitution of India. It is therefore that the State Election Commission, who is discharging this constitutional obligation, has been vested with the duty to publish the election notification to the Managing Committee of the Bank. This acquires more seriousness in view of the fact that the State Election Commission itself has issued Circular No.9/2012 dated 10.07.2012, wherein it has been specifically stated that the Electoral Officer to whom the power to publish the notification is delegated by the Election Commissioner, has to decide which are the newspapers having wide circulation in the area in question and it is on the decision of the Electoral Officer that the election notification should be published in two vernacular dailies. I have perused Ext.R1(a) letter dated 05.05.2017 issued by the Electoral Officer to the Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank, the former directing the latter to publish the election notification in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area. I have perused Ext.R1(a) letter dated 05.05.2017 issued by the Electoral Officer to the Managing Director of the petitioner-Bank, the former directing the latter to publish the election notification in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area. However, it is seen that the Electoral Officer has not named any newspapers in which the election notification is to be published, in Ext.R1(a) letter. In spite of the statutory obligation of the authorities and in spite of the circulars issued by them, this omission has been made. 15. In the absence of any such direction, the petitioner published the notification in two vernacular dailies. The dailies in which the advertisements have been published, namely Kerala Kaumudi and Chandrika, are well known newspapers in Malayalam having longstanding record and tradition. The question whether these two dailies have wide circulation in the area of operation of the petitioner-Bank is a question of fact. Neither the impugned order of the 2nd respondent nor the counter affidavits filed, disclose the nature of enquiries made in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Exts.P9 and P10 from the respective dailies and the dailies certify that the newspapers are having extensive circulation in Pallichal Panchayat/have readership all over Thiruvananthapuram District. I find no reason to disbelieve Exts.P9 and P10, especially when no concrete enquiry in this regard is seen to be made by the authorities concerned. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that Ext.P2 order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 16. The next question is how to proceed with the election to the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a Division Bench of this Court has held in V.K. Madhavan Namboodiri v. M.V. Kammaran and others [ 1992 (2) KLJ 645 ] that the election process once having started, if the actual election could not be held due to any reason whatsoever, it can be continued from the stage at which it was stopped. The Division Bench further held that if the election process is adjourned under Rule 35(3) of the Rules, then also the proceedings can be continued from the stage at which it was stopped. The Division Bench further held that if the election process is adjourned under Rule 35(3) of the Rules, then also the proceedings can be continued from the stage at which it was stopped. In view of the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and also taking into account the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the election process should be continued from the stage at which it was cancelled. Any direction to start election process afresh may result in injustice in so far as the nature of collegium of electorate may change if it is so directed, to the detriment of some of the candidates. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with the following orders/directions:- (i) Ext.P2 order of the 1st respondent is set aside. (ii) Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to proceed with Ext.P1 election notification for election to the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Bank from the stage at which Ext.P2 notice was issued. (iii) Respondents 1 to 3 shall ensure that polling date is published widely in newspapers having wide circulation in the area of operation of the Society. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.