ORDER : I.A. No. 01/2023 : 1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the applicant – the elected member of the Society, seeking his impleadment as party respondent. 2. Instead of impleading the applicant as party respondent, he is allowed to intervene. 3. Application stands disposed of, accordingly. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4511/2023 : 1. The petitioners have approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, with the assertion that the respondents have wrongly issued final voter list dated 02.04.2023. 2. Before advancing his arguments, Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioners apprised the Court of the facts appertain and submitted that the election programme was firstly issued by the State Co-operative Election Officer on 27.03.2023. In furtherance thereof on the same day, the election officer, respondent No.4 issued provisional Voter List and election promramme indicating therein that the concerned person or persons will be eligible to file their objection(s) from 27.03.2023 to 02.04.2023 till 1:00 PM. According to him, the petitioners filed their objection but by discarding the same, the final voter list has been issued on 02.04.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners approached this Court on 04.04.2023 itself, before the election process, as a matter of fact, was put in motion, as the date of submitting nomination form was 05.04.2023. 4. Mr. Sandhu submitted that as per by-law 9/6 of the By-Laws of the Societies, minimum required turn over for an individual member or society to be eligible to vote is, as fixed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. And such turn over limit has been fixed by the Registrar by the order dated 28.04.2014 and accordingly, in case of an individual member, the same has been fixed as Rs.5,000/- and for the purpose of Society, the turn over has been fixed as Rs.50,000/- in the financial year preceding the year of election. 5. Learned counsel argued that as the date of election was 10.04.2023, the Election Officer was required to consider petitioners’ turn over for financial year 2022-23 (01.04.2022– 31.03.2023) for which period, the petitioners have carried out transactions of more than of Rs.5,000/-, the minimum turn over required as per the order dated 28.04.2014 from an individual member of the society to exercise the right to vote. 6. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.1 had transacted a business of about Rs.5044/- in financial year (2022- 23) and so was the position of the remaining petitioners, hence, they were eligible, though their transactions of financial year 2021-2022 were Zero or below Rs.5,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners read the order dated 28.04.2014 and highlighted that in no ambiguous terms the order dated 28.04.2014 provides that the turn over of the financial year preceding the date of election has to be seen and argued that as the date of election in the instant case was 10.04.2023, the respondent no.4 was supposed to take into account the turn over of the financial year 2022-23 and not of the financial year 2021- 22, as has been done by the respondent No.4 while preparing final voter list dated 02.04.2023. 8. Learned counsel submitted that immediately after the issuance of provisional voter list on 27.03.2023, the petitioners have lodged their objection on 01.04.2023 with the documentary evidence of their turn over (more than Rs.5,000/-) and requested the respondent No.4 to include their names in voter list, but their request had been turned down by the respondent no.4, for the reason that the turn over of financial year 2021-22 was to be taken into account and not of the financial year 2022-23. 9. Learned counsel argued that going by the order of Registrar dated 28.04.2014, the approach adopted by the respondent no.4 was clearly erroneous and the final voter list, which he has issued on 02.04.2023 is, therefore, illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. He prayed that the petitioners be declared eligible voters. 10. Mr. Tak, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent – State, on the other hand submitted that the petitioners’ plea is untenable in law, inasmuch as, the relevant date has to be reckoned as the date on which the provisional list of voters was prepared and not the date of the election. 10. Mr. Tak, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent – State, on the other hand submitted that the petitioners’ plea is untenable in law, inasmuch as, the relevant date has to be reckoned as the date on which the provisional list of voters was prepared and not the date of the election. He submitted that going by the language of the order dated 28.04.2014, the petitioners’ stand appears to be correct, but if the provisions of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2003’), are taken into consideration in light of the scheme of the election, the relevant date has to be the date on which the election notification is issued. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent – State argued that the Chief Executive Officer or the Election Officer cannot take into account the figures of turn over of the current year (2022-23); he has to consider the figures of turn over of preceding financial year. Relying upon provisions of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 45 of the Rules of 2003, learned counsel argued that the respondent no.4 has committed no error of law. 12. A preliminary objection was also raised by the learned counsel for the respondent – State and Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor that since the election process has begun, this Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction and the better course for the petitioners is to file an election petition under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2001’). 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. Dealing with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, according to this Court, the present matter does not involve an election dispute, per-se. The petitioners have challenged the final voters list and have approached even before the date of nomination and have brought before the Court a neat question of law, which needs to be decided beforehand. 15. The petitioners have challenged the final voters list and have approached even before the date of nomination and have brought before the Court a neat question of law, which needs to be decided beforehand. 15. In normal circumstance, this Court would not have entertained the petition and would have directed the petitioners to avail remedy under Rule 58 of the Rules of 2003, but for whatever has been stated in preceding paras and considering that the same question is likely to be involved in many other cases, instead of getting divergent views of the different statutory authorities, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to decide the basic question in order to ward off conflicting decisions on the issue in hands. 16. That apart, the writ petition was filed immediately on publication of the final voter list dated 02.04.2023 on 04.04.2023 and an interim order has been passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 05.04.2023 (even before the final list of eligible candidates was published), whereby it has been ordered that the petitioners would be allowed to cast their votes but the result of the election shall not be declared, which interim order is continuing. Therefore, dismissing the writ petition at this juncture and requiring the petitioners to file an election petition would not be expedient. The petitioners have already casted their votes. What remains to be decided is, whether their votes should be counted or not. 17. The preliminary objection is, therefore, rejected. 18. Adverting to the merit of the case, it is noteworthy that when the election programme was issued by the respondent No.4 by way of notice dated 27.03.2023, in furtherance of the notice issued by the Rajasthan State Co-operative Election Authority, the date of election was already fixed as 10.04.2023. Accordingly, when the election programme was issued and when the Election Officer had prepared the provisional voter list, he was well aware of the fact that the elections were going to be held on 10.04.2023. The Election Officer was required to determine the eligibility of the voters, while bearing in mind the ensuing date of election. Going by the order of the Registrar dated 28.04.2014, he was required to ascertain the turn over of financial year preceding to the date of election i.e. 10.04.2023. The preceding year from 10.04.2023 is obviously, the financial year 2022-23 (01.04.2022 – 31.03.2023). 19. Going by the order of the Registrar dated 28.04.2014, he was required to ascertain the turn over of financial year preceding to the date of election i.e. 10.04.2023. The preceding year from 10.04.2023 is obviously, the financial year 2022-23 (01.04.2022 – 31.03.2023). 19. The plea taken by the respondents in their reply that the relevant date is the date of issuance of election notification i.e. 27.03.2023 and therefore, the turn over of financial year 2021- 2022 was to be taken into account, in the opinion of this Court is clearly contrary to the order dated 28.04.2014 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which enjoins upon the Election Officer to take into account the figures of turn over of the financial year preceding the year of election. 20. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 45 of the Rules of 2003 also supports the above view taken by this Court. 20. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 45 of the Rules of 2003 also supports the above view taken by this Court. It will not be out of place to reproduce Sub-rule (5) & (6) of Rule 45, which are relevant for the present purposes: “(5) (i) The Chief Executive Officer of a society shall send a written request to the Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act and these rules, to conduct elections of the member(s) of the committee specifying the following details in his letter :- (a) The date on which last elections were held, (b) The date on which the term of the existing committee or members thereof, as the case may be, is going to expire, (c) The date of appointment of an Administrator 1 [under section 30 or otherwise], if any; (d) In case of a newly registered society, the date of registration of the society, (e) The number of vacancies to be filled through elections, (f) Whether the bye-laws provide for constitution of a Delegate General Body or formation of wards before elections to the committee and action taken in that respect, if any; (g) Other information, as may be important for conduct of the elections; (ii) The Chief Executive Officer shall also quote the clauses of the bye-laws which are of relevance for conduct of elections, appending a complete updated set of the bye-laws to the letter; (iii) The Chief Executive Officer shall render the Election Officer all such information, assistance and facilities as may be required by him under the provisions of the Act, these rules and the instructions issued by the State Co-operative Election Authority under section 37 of the Act. (iv) It will be the duty of the existing committee to ensure that the C.E.O. renders all the information, assistance and facilities to the State Co-operative Election Authority properly and in time: [Provided that if the bye-laws of the society do not provide a post of Chief Executive Officer, a person working in place of the Chief Executive Officer, as per the bye-laws, shall render all the information, assistance and facilities to the State Co-operative Election Authority.] (6) (i) The Chief Executive Officer shall provide the Election Officer a list of members, as it stood thirty days prior to the date fixed for the poll who are qualified in accordance with the provisions of Act, rules and the bye-laws to vote at the election. (ii) The Election Officer shall publish such list by affixing it to the notice board at the Head Office of the society and all its branches for inviting objections within a week. The list shall specify the admission number, name of the eligible members and in case of individual member, name of father or husband, as the case may be, and address of such members. (iii) The Election Officer, after considering the objections received within the period specified aforesaid, shall finalise the electoral rolls and publish the same as above not less than seven days prior to the date fixed for the poll. A copy of the electoral rolls shall be supplied by the Election Officer to any member on payment of Rupees Five per folio” 21. A simple look at Sub-rule (6) reveals that the Chief Executive Officer has to provide the Election Officer a list of members, who are qualified in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and By-Laws to vote at the election. As such, the Chief Executive Officer was to provide the list of members, who were eligible to cast their vote on the date of election, which was 10.04.2023 and not as on the date of issuance of the election notification. He is thereafter supposed to apply the yardstick given in the order dated 28.04.2014 issued by the Registrar and accordingly, he ought to have taken figures of 2022-23. 22. He is thereafter supposed to apply the yardstick given in the order dated 28.04.2014 issued by the Registrar and accordingly, he ought to have taken figures of 2022-23. 22. Then, provision contained in Sub-rule (6) of Rule 45 of the Rules of 2003 will have its own effect, which prescribes that the list of members, 30 days prior to the date fixed for date of election is required to be sent by the Chief Executive Officer. The Election Officer ought to have determined the turn over as on the cut off date which is 10.03.2023 (30 days prior to the date of Poll or election). The turn over of business that has been transacted after 10.03.2023 cannot be considered in order to adjudge the eligibility of a person to be a member entitled to vote. 23. If Sub-rule (6) of Rule 45 is read in conjunction with the order dated 28.04.2014, in the opinion of this Court, respondent No.4 was supposed to reckon the turn over figures of financial year 2022-23, as elections were scheduled to be held on 10.04.2023, the turn over for the period 01.04.2022 to 10.03.2023 should have been taken into account. 24. In other words, on the date of preparation of election programme namely on 27.03.2023, the Chief Executive Officer was supposed to send the list of eligible members who have requisite turn over in the financial year 2022-2023 up to 10.03.2023. 25. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, the question which has come up for consideration of this Court is decided in the manner that “the Election Officer is supposed to include names of those members/societies who had transacted business of more than Rs.5,000/- or Rs.50,000/- (as the case may be) in the financial year preceding the date of election. In case, the elections are held in the first month of any financial year, thus instead of the complete year, the figures up to 30 days prior to the date of election are required to be taken into consideration. 26. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner No.2 and 3 had placed before the respondent no.4 their objection and evidence of having transacted business of Rs.5044/- on 21.03.2023. Since the business has been transacted after the cut off date i.e. 10.03.2023, these petitioners are not entitled or eligible to vote. 26. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner No.2 and 3 had placed before the respondent no.4 their objection and evidence of having transacted business of Rs.5044/- on 21.03.2023. Since the business has been transacted after the cut off date i.e. 10.03.2023, these petitioners are not entitled or eligible to vote. Though petitioners’ objections have been rejected considering their turn over of the year 2021-22, but in the light of the adjudication made hereinabove, the petitioners cannot be said to be eligible voters, as they did not have requisite turn over during the relevant period (01.04.2022 to 10.03.2023). 27. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. 28. By virtue of interim order, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to cast their votes in the election. As petitioners have been found ineligible to vote, the election officer is directed to declare the result forthwith, by excluding petitioners’ votes, which have been kept in sealed envelope. 29. Stay application stands dismissed, accordingly.