JUDGMENT : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 31606 of 2019. The appellants were respondents 5 and 6 and the first respondent herein was the petitioner, therein. The first respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, call for records pertaining to Exhibit P4 and quash the same and declare that 6th respondent came to power in an illegal manner and not by way of legally established proceedings. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to do the needful required to start a fresh legal election process complying all legal requirements and conduct a proper election fulfilling all those. (iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 or the more responsible among them to remove the present committee and appoint an administrator till a legally elected committee takes charge.” 2. The first respondent herein/the writ petitioner is an 'A' class member of the first appellant Society viz. Chala Farmers Welfare Co-operative Society. The short facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- According to the writ petitioner/first respondent herein, he came to know about the election to the Managing Committee of the first appellant society only on 3.10.2019. In fact, election to the Managing Committee of the first appellant society was notified by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.R6(f) dated 29.8.2019. Election process was scheduled under Ext.R6(f) as hereunder: xxx xxx xxx 3. The schedule of election given in Ext.R6(f) would reveal that election was fixed to be held on 19.10.2019. Paragraph 2 of the writ petition would reveal that even according to the writ petitioner, he came to know about the date of election to the Managing Committee of the first appellant, on 3.10.2019. It is his case that thereupon he filed Ext.P1 representation dated 4.10.2019 essentially, seeking for postponement of the election. Subsequently, the writ petitioner/first respondent herein filed another representation viz. Ext.P2 dated 9.10.2019 to the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, the 4th respondent herein. It is also relevant to note that in paragraph 3 of the writ petition the writ petitioner has pointedly stated that he received a communication on 14.10.2019, requiring him to appear for hearing before the 4th respondent, the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies. Ext.P2 dated 9.10.2019 to the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, the 4th respondent herein. It is also relevant to note that in paragraph 3 of the writ petition the writ petitioner has pointedly stated that he received a communication on 14.10.2019, requiring him to appear for hearing before the 4th respondent, the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies. Going by the same, hearing was proposed to be held on 19.10.2019 viz. the very day on which election was scheduled to be held. Obviously, on 19.10.2019 the writ petitioner attended the hearing and the 4th respondent in the writ petition/5th respondent herein thereafter, passed an order on Ext.P2 representation submitted by the writ petitioner, as per Ext.P4 dated 26.10.2019. It is in the said circumstances that seeking inter-alia, quashment of Ext.P4 as also initiation of fresh election process the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the above mentioned writ petition. 4. The appellants herein who were respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition jointly filed a counter affidavit resisting the claims and contentions of the writ petitioner. It is very specifically stated therein that the writ petition was filed after completion of the election process. It is also stated therein that in such circumstances the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Nonetheless, the learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment directed the State Co-operative Election Commission to verify whether notice was served as contemplated under Rule 35A(3A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for brevity ‘KCS Rules’) to the writ petitioner and further to pass appropriate orders after looking into the said aspect, within the time stipulated therein. Furthermore it was held:- “Interim order will continue till decision is taken by the Election Commission as above. If the Election Commission is of the view that the procedure as above was not followed, the Commission can pass an order nullifying the election to the Managing Committee. The petitioner also can point out any other irregularities before the Election Commission. The writ petition is disposed of as above.” (Underline supplied) It is feeling aggrieved by the said judgment that the captioned appeal has been preferred. 5. Heard Sri. B.S. Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. C. Leena, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Sri. Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Co-operative Election Commission and the learned Government Pleader. 6. 5. Heard Sri. B.S. Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. C. Leena, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Sri. Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Co-operative Election Commission and the learned Government Pleader. 6. From the materials on record it is evident that election was scheduled to be held to the Managing Committee of the first appellant, on 19.10.2019 as per Ext.R6(f). Even according to the writ petitioner/first respondent herein, he came to know about the date fixed for election on 3.10.2019. The very next day he filed Ext.P1 representation to the 3rd respondent viz. State Co-operative Election Commission. There is no averment in the writ petition that subsequent to the filing of Ext.P1 the writ petitioner received any communication from the Election Commission. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies. True that, the writ petitioner had received notice of hearing on Ext.P2 from the 5th respondent. It is to be noted that as per the communication received from the 5th respondent hearing was proposed to be held on 19.10.2019 viz. the very day which was fixed for conducting election to the Managing Committee of the first appellant. The said fact would go to show that even coming to know about the said crucial aspects the writ petitioner did not take any action and was awaiting the outcome of the hearing to be held on 19.10.2019. As noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P4 is the order passed by the 5th respondent on Ext.P2 representation and it was passed on 26.10.2019. Even thereafter the writ petitioner did not take any immediate steps for ventilating his grievances and he moved this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition only on 21.11.2019. 7. We have already adverted to the prayers made by the writ petitioner in the said writ petition. A scanning of the pleadings in the writ petition would reveal that the writ petitioner did not specifically state in the writ petition that election to the Managing Committee of the first appellant was conducted on 19.10.2019. However, the writ petitioner could not be held guilty of suppression of that fact as he may and in fact he could contend, necessary indications regarding conduct of election and assumption of office by the same members of the previous committee were mentioned by him. However, the writ petitioner could not be held guilty of suppression of that fact as he may and in fact he could contend, necessary indications regarding conduct of election and assumption of office by the same members of the previous committee were mentioned by him. Thus, though the writ petitioner was actually aware of the factum of election and the consequential assumption of charge by the members elected unopposed to the Managing Committee, wisely the writ petitioner refrained himself from seeking to set aside the election as in such eventuality, he would have been asked to assail the election availing the statutory remedy. However, a perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition, extracted hereinbefore, would reveal that he sought reliefs to achieve the same indirectly. As can be seen from prayer No. 1, the writ petitioner sought for a declaration that the 6th respondent came to power in an illegal manner. Sixth respondent in the writ petition was the Managing Committee elected on 19.10.2019. This fact is evident from Ext.R6(d). We have taken note of all the aforesaid aspects as they were very crucial for deciding the question regarding the maintainability of the writ petition at that stage. The pleadings of the appellants herein revealed from their joint counter affidavit would reveal that by the time the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition the entire process of election was completed and the persons who were elected unopposed had also assumed charge. To be precise, it is only after a month and two days since the date of election and the assumption of power by the elected persons that the writ petition was filed. In such circumstances, the question is whether the writ petition could have been entertained? The other question calls for consideration is whether the 3rd respondent viz. State Cooperative Election Commission could have been conferred with the power to consider the legality of the election conducted on 19.10.2019? 8. We will firstly consider the correctness of the direction to the State Co-operative Election Commission to consider whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 35A(3A) of KCS Rules were followed in the election and conferment of power to the State Co-operative Election Commission to nullify the election to the Managing Committee as also conferment of right to the writ petitioner to point out any other irregularities before the Election Commission. It is to be noted that the election was conducted to the Managing Committee of the Society in question by the 3rd respondent-Election Commission in terms of its own notification viz. Ext.R6(f). It will not be inappropriate in this context to refer to Section 28-B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for brevity ‘the KCS Act’ only). It reads thus:- “28-B. State Co-operative Election Commission - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Rules the Government shall by notification in the Gazette, constitute a State Co-operative Election Commission for the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and for the conduct of all elections to Co-operative Societies including election to the President/Vice President and Representative General Body.....” A bare perusal of the same would reveal that the State Co-operative Election Commission has been constituted for the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and for the conduct of all elections to Co-operative Societies including election to the President/Vice president and Representative General Body. In that context, it is also relevant to refer to Article 243-ZK of the Constitution of India. It reads thus:- “243-ZK. Election of members of board - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law made by the Legislature of a State, the election of a board shall be conducted before the expiry of the term of the board so as to ensure that the newly elected members of the board assume office immediately on the expiry of the term of the office of members of the outgoing board. (2) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to a co-operative society shall vest in such an authority or body, as may be provided by the Legislature of a State, by law: Provided that the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the procedure and guidelines for the conduct of such elections.” Thus, a perusal of Article 243-ZK of the Constitution of India as also Section 28-B of the KCS Act would undoubtedly show that the State Co-operative Election Commission is constituted for the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Co-operative Societies. Going by the decision in Mohana Chandran Nair vs. State Cooperative Election Commission, 2013 (3) KLT 506 , if the circumstances are such that a free and fair election could not be conducted, then the Election Commission could interfere in the matter and postpone the election. There is nothing in the Co-operative Societies Act which would indicate that once election to the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society or President and Vice President of such a committee is over, the Election Commission is empowered to consider the legality of such election conducted by it. 9. In short, when the State Co-operative Election Commission is constituted for the aforesaid purpose and when there is absolutely no specific provision empowering the Commission to adjudicate the legality of an election which it itself conducted, how can such a power be conferred on the Commission? As per the impugned judgment, the Election Commission was virtually given the liberty to pass an order nullifying the election to the Managing Committee subject to its opinion on the question whether the procedures prescribed under Rule 35A (3A) of KCS Rules have been followed or not. In that context, the contention of the writ petitioner also assumes relevance. Evidently, the contention of the writ petitioner is that in the case on hand there is violation of the mandate under Rule 35A (3A), which reads thus:- “35 (3A) In the case of societies with less than five hundred members in the voters list, the State Cooperative Election Commission may intimate each of the members in the final voter's list, the particulars of notification under sub-rule (3) by registered post with acknowledgment or speed post or through courier service approved by the High Court of Kerala/Government of Kerala or in person to be duly acknowledged.” (Underline supplied) Going by the said provision, in the case of societies with less than 500 members in the voters list the Co-operative Election Commission may intimate each of the members in the final voters' list, the particulars of the notification by resorting to any of the modes provided thereunder. Thus, when the case of the writ petitioner is that there was violation of the procedure contemplated under Rule 35A (3A) of the KCS Rules, it can be attributed only to the Co-operative Election Commission as it was to be complied with by the State Election Commission viz. the third respondent herein. Thus, when the case of the writ petitioner is that there was violation of the procedure contemplated under Rule 35A (3A) of the KCS Rules, it can be attributed only to the Co-operative Election Commission as it was to be complied with by the State Election Commission viz. the third respondent herein. In the light of Rule 35A (3A) of the KCS Rules sustenance of the contention of the writ petitioner would indicate only lapse on the part of the State Co-operative Election Commission as the said provision says that the Commission may intimate each of the members in the final voters list the particulars of notification under sub-rule (3), by resorting to any of the modes specified thereunder in the case of societies with less than 500 members in the voters list. 10. In that regard, the decision of this Court in Abdul Salam O.A. vs. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission, 2017 (5) KHC 1006 assumes relevance. In fact, in that case, this Court was dealing with sub-rule (3) of Rule 35A of the KCS Rules. The relevant provision thereunder is as hereunder:- “The State Election Commission shall notify the details of election to the committee of the society, in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area.” (Underline supplied) 11. In the decision in Abdul Salam's case (supra) this Court held that so far as sub-rule (3) is concerned, the State Election Commission is to notify the details of election to the committee of the society in two vernaculars dailies. We have already extracted Rule 35A (3A) of the KCS Rules. At the risk of repetition we will refer to its first limb which is relevant for the purpose and it reads thus:- “....the State Co-operative Election Commission may intimate each of the members in the final voters list, the particulars of notification under sub-rule (3)......” (Underline supplied) True that, under Rule 35A (3) the expression “shall” is used and under Rule 35A(3A) the expression “may” is used. Still, as regards the question who is to notify the details of election notification the answer can only be one and the same viz. the State Co-operative Election Commission. In such circumstances, the salutary maxim nemo debet esse judex in sua causa means 'no man shall be a judge in his own cause' has to apply. Still, as regards the question who is to notify the details of election notification the answer can only be one and the same viz. the State Co-operative Election Commission. In such circumstances, the salutary maxim nemo debet esse judex in sua causa means 'no man shall be a judge in his own cause' has to apply. When the non-adherence to the provisions under Rule 35A(3A) can be attributed only to the said State Co-operative Election Commission, if at all it can be attributed in the circumstances obtained in this case, how can it be directed to be considered by the Election Commission. We can answer the same only in the negative. 12. Another aspect also assumes relevance in the aforesaid context in the light of the provision under Section 69 of the KCS Act. Section 69 to the extent it is relevant reads thus:- “69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises:- (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members. (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, a past member of deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society. (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society. (d) between the society and any other society. (e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it. (f) between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person. (g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society. (g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society. (h) between the society and a creditor of the society; such dispute shall be referred to the Cooperative Arbitration Court constituted under Sec. 70A, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall also be deemed to be disputes, namely:- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not. (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not. (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or any officer of the society.” Thus, the provisions under Sections 28-B and 69 of the KCS Act would reveal that they operate on different fields and after insertion of Section 28-B in the KCS Act, authority for superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and for conduct of all elections to Co-operative Societies vests with the State Co-operative Election Commission. At the same time, dispute regarding election to the Managing Committee or validity of the election or disputes arising in the process of election would fall within the sweep of Section 69 of the KCS Act and therefore, can be called in question by way of an Election Petition. 13. As noticed hereinbefore, the election was conducted on 19.10.2019 based on which the 6th respondent Managing Committee assumed power. The writ petition was filed after a month since the election and assumption of power by the said Managing Committee. 13. As noticed hereinbefore, the election was conducted on 19.10.2019 based on which the 6th respondent Managing Committee assumed power. The writ petition was filed after a month since the election and assumption of power by the said Managing Committee. Section 69 of the KCS Act would become relevant in the said circumstances as it provides for settlement of disputes. Thus, when the KCS Act specifically provides a remedy for resolution of dispute in connection with election to the Management of any society, once the election is over, the legality of the election can be called in question only by resorting to the said specific provision and at any rate, that power to adjudicate such a dispute cannot be conferred on the Election Commission, which conducted the very election. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances and position of law, we are of the view that in view of the indisputable provision that election to the Managing Committee of the first appellant was held on 19.10.2019 and on the same day itself the elected members assumed power, the learned single Judge ought not to have granted liberty to the Election Commission to pass orders nullifying the election to the Managing Committee based on its decision regarding compliance or otherwise of the provisions under Rule 35A (3A) of the KCS Rules. 14. The upshot of the discussion is that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment in W.P. (C) No. 31606/2019 is set aside and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the writ petitioner viz. the first respondent herein, working out his legal remedies, in accordance with law.