JUDGMENT : Rajnish Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Nirankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Sri Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel representing U.P. State Cooperative Societies Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Election Commission), Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4-District Cooperative Federation Limited, Bulandshahar and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6. 2. By instituting these proceedings, the petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Chief Election Commissioner(Cooperative Societies), whereby the elections of District Cooperative Federation Limited, Bulandshahar(hereinafter referred to as the society), which were notified on 16.02.2018, were postponed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, impeaching the impugned order, is that once the election process had commenced by way of issuing the notification dated 16.02.2018, the Election Commission or for that matter any other authority of the State Government does not have any jurisdiction to postpone the election process. It has also been argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the notification issued on 16.02.2018 by the Chief Election Commissioner himself, the entire time bound programme was notified wherein deadlines were given for various purposes including for the purpose of publication of provisional electoral college, filing objection to such provisional electoral college and publication of final electoral college. He has further stated that as per the said schedule, the date on which the final electoral college was to be published was 16.04.2018 whereas the impugned order has been passed a day thereafter, i.e., on 17.04.2018 and hence once the final electoral college was published in terms of the Election Notification on 16.02.2018 itself, the impugned order could not have been passed by the Chief Election Commissioner for the reason that the same amounts to interference in the election process which had already set in. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Chief Election Commissioner to have acted upon the complaint which was allegedly enquired into by the Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahar and was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to the Chief Election Commissioner. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Chief Election Commissioner to have acted upon the complaint which was allegedly enquired into by the Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahar and was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to the Chief Election Commissioner. Submission in this regard is that District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue) or for that matter any other authority of the State Government did not have any locus to interfere in the election process once it had been notified and process of the election had been set in motion. 4. On the other hand, it has been argued by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for Election Commission and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, learned State Counsel and Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4, in unison that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 29 (3) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965), the Election Commission has all the authority and jurisdiction to postpone the election process or to cancel the same for the reason that it is a duty cast upon the Election Commission to ensure that free and fair poll takes place for constituting Committee of Management of every cooperative society throughout the state of Uttar Pradesh. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and have also perused the records available before us. The issue/ question which falls for our consideration and decision is as to whether once election process commences and a notification for the said process is issued by the Chief Election Commissioner, whether any interference is legally permissible either by way of postponing the elections or cancelling the same by the Chief Election Commissioner on the ground that certain irregularities have been found in the electoral list. 6. 6. It is not in dispute that by means of the notification dated 16.02.2018 issued by the Chief Election Commissioner, the election of the cooperative society concerned, which is a central cooperative society in terms of Section 2(d)(3) of the Act of 1965, was notified and as per the said notification various dates were fixed for completing the process of election including the date and time for publication of tentative electoral list, for filing objections against tentative electoral list and for publication of final electoral list, on the basis of which in terms of the said notification the election was to be held. As per the said schedule, the last date for publication of the final electoral list was 16.04.2018 which was to be published between 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. However, the Chief Election Commissioner on the next date, i.e., 17.04.2018 postponed the elections on the basis of certain letter received from the District Magistrate which was based on the report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahar. 7. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once election process is set in motion, the district authorities or for that matter or any other authority of the State Government did not have any jurisdiction to interfere in the same is concerned, we may point out that some enquiry report has been submitted based on which the letter has been written by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to the Chief Election Commissioner. The same in our considered opinion would not amount to any interference in the election process rather the report and the letter of the Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate concerned will only be a material on the basis of which the Chief Election Commissioner is empowered to take appropriate decision to ensure free and fair polls. 8. The same in our considered opinion would not amount to any interference in the election process rather the report and the letter of the Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate concerned will only be a material on the basis of which the Chief Election Commissioner is empowered to take appropriate decision to ensure free and fair polls. 8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that even the Chief Election Commissioner does not have any authority or jurisdiction or power to interfere in the process of election once it has been set in motion, is concerned, we may indicate that in tune with the constitutional provisions available in part IX-B of the Constitution of India which was added by way of Amendment Act 2011 w.e.f. 15.02.2012, provisions contained in Section 243ZK of the Constitution of India provides that 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. Sub-section 2 of Article 243ZK clearly mandates the state legislatures to enact a law for the purposes of creating an authority or body for the superintendence, control, direction and preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections to a cooperative society. The Election Commission, thus, owes its existence not only to the State Legislation but also to Article 243K of the Constitution of India. 9. The Election Commission in the State of U.P. for the purpose of superintendence and other ancilliary functions including revision of electoral rolls can be found defined in Section 2(j) of the Act of 1965. Section 29(3) of the Act of 1965 provides that election to re-constitute a committee of management of every cooperative society shall be completed in the manner prescribed, under the superintendence, control and direction of the Election Commission. It further provides that such election is to be conducted at least 15 days before the expiry of the term of the committee of management and that of the members. It further provides that such election is to be conducted at least 15 days before the expiry of the term of the committee of management and that of the members. Thus, provisions of part IX-B of Constitution of India read with the provisions contained in the Act of 1965 clearly mandate that election of member of the society ought to take place before the term of the outgoing member of the committee of management expires. 10. We may also notice that Article 243ZK (2) of the Constitution of India clearly mandates that by providing a law superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of all elections to the cooperative society is to be vested in a body, which in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has been constituted as Election Commission for the Cooperative Societies. The words, 'Superintendence', 'Direction' and 'Control' not only in respect of preparation of electoral rolls but also for conduct of elections vest very wide powers in the Election Commission. We have no hesitation to observe that in so far as ensuring free and fair elections of the cooperative society for the state of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the Election Commission by virtue of article 243ZK (2) of the Constitution of India and subsection 3 of section 29 of the Act of 1965 is vested with almost plenary powers, which in our considered opinion will include the authority/ power/ jurisdiction to postpone the election or even to cancel the election. However the condition precedent for exercising of such power or authority is that the purpose of postponement or cancellation of an election should be to ensure free and fair polls. Such authority is since all encompassing hence is to be exercised by the Election Commission/ Chief Election Commissioner very sparingly and only to achieve the object of conducting free and fair elections. Exercise of such powers cannot be permitted to be resorted to in a routine manner. The Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner has to bear in mind that though the Election Commission is an authority created by the statute and entrusted with very important function, however it has to act only for the purpose for which it has been created, namely, for superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral roll and also conduct of elections. Conduct of elections of a democratic institution in a free and fair manner is one of the most significant and important facet of a democratic polity. 11. We have already noticed that the statutory mandate as available in Article 243ZK as also under section 29 of Act of 1965 is that Committee of Management needs to be constituted before expiry of the term of the out-going committee of management. 12. In the instant case, the Chief Election Commissioner has exercised powers vested in him under Section 29(3) read with Article 243 ZK(2) of the Constitution of India while passing the impugned order dated 17.04.2018. It has been stated by learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission that the report of the Additional District Magistrate which was sent by the District magistrate to the Chief Election Commissioner related to illegal electoral roll, which is said to have been prepared in derogation of the order passed by this court on 09.04.2018 in Writ Petition No.10053 of 2018. 13. Be that as it may, based on some material, sufficiency of which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the Election Commissioner or Chief Election Commissioner comes to a conclusion that permitting the elections on the basis of illegal or incorrect electoral roll will not be in the interest of free and fair elections, in our considered opinion in such a situation the Election Commission/Chief Election Commissioner exercising his ancillary powers is empowered and has jurisdiction to postpone or even to cancel such election. At this juncture, we may also notice that District Magistrate is not an alien to the election process for the reason that in terms of Rule 2(j) of U.P. State Co-operative Societies Election Rules 2014, he is the District Cooperative Election Officer. Thus, District Magistrate in his capacity as District/ Election Officer is part of the election commission itself and hence if he makes any complaint or submits any cogent material on the basis of which Chief election commissioner forms an opinion that permitting elections to go on would not be in the interest of free and fair polls, as observed above, the Chief Election Commissioner has the authority to take decision either to postpone or even to cancel the election process. 14. 14. For the reasons as aforesaid, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Chief Election Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality, much less any jurisdictional error as such it does not call for any interference by us in this writ petition. 15. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the petitioner was elected unopposed pursuant to the election programme declared by notification dated 16.02.2018 as such even if the elections are to be held now, the same should commence from the stage it was postponed by means of the impugned order. 16. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in our considered opinion is not tenable for the reason that, the proviso appended to Section 29 of Act of 1965 provides that where Election Commission is satisfied that circumstances exists which render it difficult to hold the election on the date fixed, it may postpone the election and all proceedings pertaining to the election shall commence afresh in all respects. It is this power vested in the Election Commission under the said proviso appended to section 29(3) of the Act that vests jurisdiction in the chief election commissioner/ Election Commission to postpone the election and hence in our considered opinion the impugned order dated 17.04.2018 is referable to the said provision apart from the provision contained in Article 243-Z-K of the Constitution of India. The proviso clearly says that if for some reason elections were postponed then subsequent election is to commence afresh in all respects. The occurrence of the word in "all respects" would clearly mean that entire process of election is to be commenced de novo. 17. Rule 432 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules 1968 provides that if for any reason election of any cooperative society gets disrupted by the district magistrate or by the election officer, the process of election shall commence from the stage at which it was disrupted or from the stage prior to that or denovo as the Registrar may decide. The aforesaid provision of Rule 432 vests the discretion in the Registrar to decide the stage from which the elections are to be held. The aforesaid provision of Rule 432 vests the discretion in the Registrar to decide the stage from which the elections are to be held. However, we may only note that the provision contained in the proviso appended to section 29(3) of the Act of 1965 will prevail over the said provision as the rules are only subordinate to the Principle Legislation which cannot override the provision of the Act under which the Rules have been framed. It is also to be noted that Rule 432 was inserted in U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules 1968 on 15.07.1994 i.e. prior to the provisions which have been inserted in the 1965 Act on the enactment of Part IX-B of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noticed that in tune with part IX-B of the Constitution of India, the state legislature has also amended the provision of 1965 Act on 28.03.2013 by Act No.13 of 13. 18. In view of the aforesaid, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that election of the society should be held from the stage it was disrupted by issuing the impugned order, is highly misconceived. 19. The writ petition is, thus, hereby dismissed.