JUDGMENT : All these intra-court appeals seek to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s orders dated 10.10.2023 & 12.10.2023, whereby a direction has been issued to conduct elections to the Board of Cooperative Banks in a time bound way/expeditiously. A direction is also issued not to disqualify the board members from electoral participation. (i) The order dated 10.10.2023 has been rendered in a batch of cases i.e., W.P.No.20333/2023 (CS-EL-M) C/w W.P.No.20340/2023 (CS-EL-M), W.P.No.20353/2023 (CS-EL-M) W.P.No.20458/2023 (CS-EL-M) and W.P.No.22296/2023 (CS-EL-M). The order dated 12.10.2023 has been rendered in W.P.No.21325/2023 (CS-EL-M) c/w W.P.No.21356/2023 (CS-EL-M) and W.P.No.21461/2023 (CS-EL-M). (ii) The two companion appeals i.e., W.A.No.1391/2023 & W.A.No.1392/2023 are instituted by non-parties to the above writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2023, to the extent it permits the members of the Board of the Cooperative Bank concerned. They have sought for leave of the court to prosecute these appeals. II. Brief fact matrix of these cases: (a) Elections for constituting the managerial bodies of the two co-operative banks were intended by the issuance of subject Notifications dated 08.08.2023 & 01.09.2023 (herein after ‘the Election Notifications’). They were issued by the jurisdictional Election Officers under Rule 14(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. However, these Notifications came to be recalled by the subsequent Notifications (hereafter ‘the Withdrawal Notifications’), and resultantly the intended elections stood postponed, indefinitely. This withdrawal is inter alia on the ground that the list of Eligible Voters, list of Ineligible Voters & list of defaulters were not prepared, the same being a pre-requisite. W.P.Nos.20333/2023, 20340/2023, 20353/2023 & 20458/2023 had been filed for challenging the Withdrawal Notifications. Two members of a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society had filed W.P.No.22296/2023 seeking a direction for conducting the elections after complying all the provisions of law. (b) After service of notice, the State & the Co-operative Election Authority (hereafter ‘CEA’) having entered appearance through their advocates opposed the writ petitions inter alia contending that for conducting elections, the lists of Eligible voters, Ineligible voters & defaulters are a sine qua non; since these lists were not prepared by the Chief Executives of the DCC Banks concerned, and this fact being noticed subsequently, the Withdrawal Notifications came to be issued for facilitating the preparation & publication of those lists in a time line prescribed by the extant Rules. (c) Learned Single Judge having clubbed & heard all the writ petitions, directed expeditious/time bound holding of elections and the DCC Banks have been mandamused to cooperate in the conduct of elections. The office bearers/Board Members of these Banks are directed to co-operate with the CEA in the smooth conduct of elections. Further, a direction has also been issued interdicting the electoral disqualification of the Board Members. III. A Brief description of statutory scheme for holding election inter alia to the Board of District Cooperative Banks: a) Section 28-A(4) of the 1959 Act prescribes the term of Members of the Board to be five years reckoned from the date of election. Section 29-F(4) prescribes the term of Office Bearers of the Co-operative Society to be five years from the date of their election and that it shall be co-terminus with the term of the Board. Section 27-B(e) enjoins upon the Board of Society to file a declaration regarding the date of conduct of elections when due, within six months of the close of every co-operative year i.e., 31st day of March. Section 39-AA(15) obligates the Board of every co-operative society to inform the CEA about the expiry of its term, at least six months in advance. b) Sections 39-A & 39-AA of the Act read with Rule 13-D of the Rules vest with the Karnataka State Cooperative Election Authority, the superintendence, direction & control of the election of all Co-operative Societies. Generally, it is the duty of CEA to accomplish preparatory work for the conduct of election six months prior to the expiry of the term of the Board of the Societies concerned. Section 28-B(1) mandates holding of election to the Board before the expiry of its term. Section 28-A(5) read with Section 28-B(3) provides for the appointment/assumption of charge by the Administrator, when the term of Board has expired, elections having not been held, whatever be the reason, within the prescribed time limit. c) Rule 13-D(1) of 1960 Rules saddles the Election Officer (hereafter ‘EO’) with a duty to send a consolidated list of all co-operative societies in the District wherein elections are due i.e., in advance at least three months before the date of expiry of the term of office. c) Rule 13-D(1) of 1960 Rules saddles the Election Officer (hereafter ‘EO’) with a duty to send a consolidated list of all co-operative societies in the District wherein elections are due i.e., in advance at least three months before the date of expiry of the term of office. Rule 13-D(2) mandates the CEA to publish the calendar for the preparation of Electoral Rolls and conducting elections; on the receipt of consolidated list of all such co-operative societies, through the EO. d) Rule 13-D(2-A) brought on the Rules Book vide Amendment dated 08.12.2020 injuncts the EO to take steps for the publication of List of Ineligible Voters. First a draft list is prepared on the basis of the authentic information to be furnished by the Chief Executive of every co-operative society as to the absence of members in three out of last five Annual General Body Meetings and of Members not utilizing minimum services/facility in a co-operative year as specified in the bye-laws, during the three consecutive co-operative years. The list of such persons shall be prepared by the Chief Executive of Co-operative Society after giving 15 days prior notice preceding six months of the intended election. The noticees may file their objections within fifteen days next following. The full file containing all papers/records concerning all this shall be placed at the hands of EO within thirty days. e) The Chief Executive of the society shall state in his aforesaid notice that the enlisted ineligible voters can seek redressal to their grievance, if any, at the hands of EO, within the specified period. The EO shall hear & dispose off the objections of persons provisionally enlisted as ineligible voters, within sixty days. Based on all this, a final list of ineligible voters shall be prepared & published fifteen days preceding the date of election. Rule 13-D(5) imposes an obligation on every co-operative society to prepare (i) a draft list of eligible members or representatives & delegates with right to vote, (ii) a draft list of members whose repayments will fall due before the date fixed for publication of final electoral roll, (iii) a list of defaulters and (iv) a list of other members or representatives & delegates who are not eligible to vote at the election. He shall indicate the reasons for ineligibility, memberwise. He shall indicate the reasons for ineligibility, memberwise. The society has to submit the said lists to the EO along with related books, records & documents, at least sixty days before the date of election. f) Sec.29-G(4) of 1959 Act provides that the Chief Executive of Society shall be the custodian of all records; he shall perform statutory duties and the functions enjoined by the bye-laws. Section 29-C(3) attaches a five year disqualification for being elected, if the Board of a Cooperative Society fails to assist the CEA in conducting the elections as per Sections 39-A & 29-F of the Act. This apart, Section 28-B(2) provides for a five year ‘deemed electoral ineligibility’ of the Board Members who have failed to make arrangement for conducting elections within the prescribed time limit. Rule 13-E(1) provides for the appointment of Returning Officer (hereafter ‘RO’). Rule 13-E(2)(i) imposes a duty on the RO to prepare & publish a complete time schedule for holding election. He has to fix the date and place of election in consultation with the Society. Clause (iii) of sub-Rule 2 injuncts the RO to publish a calendar of events for the purpose of conduct of elections of the Directors at least 15 clear days before the date of election, in Form-XII. Rule 14(1) enables the EO to notify, with the approval of CEA the intended election in Form-XI. IV. AS TO RELEVANT FACT MATRIX EMERGING FROM THE RECORD: a) Election to the Board of DCC Bank in W.A.No.1333/2023 (i.e., Mysuru-Chamarajanagara Bank) was held on 12.11.2018, and the Board comprising of 19 members was constituted; of these, two were nominated members. The term of members of the Board is five years from the date of election. Accordingly, the term of Board of this Bank expired on 11.11.2023. The Bank vide letter dated 04.05.2023 had informed the CEA that its term was expiring on 11.11.2023 and therefore, steps needed to be taken to conduct election. The CEA vide letter dated 15.05.2023 informed the Board that the Deputy Commissioner would be the District Election Officer (DEO) and therefore, the Board should submit all relevant documents/records to him. In terms of Board Resolution dated 02.06.2023, the documents/records were submitted on 13.06.2023. b) Similarly, election to the Board of Directors of the Davanagere Bank in W.A.No.1322/2023 was held on 30.10.2018. In terms of Board Resolution dated 02.06.2023, the documents/records were submitted on 13.06.2023. b) Similarly, election to the Board of Directors of the Davanagere Bank in W.A.No.1322/2023 was held on 30.10.2018. The election of office bearers was held on 06.12.2018, on which day, the Board assumed charge. The election to the Office of President of the Board was held on 22.11.2018. The Board vide Letter dated 24.04.2023 had informed the CEA that its tenure would be coming to an end on 29.10.2023 and therefore, steps be taken for conducting election. Accordingly, the CEA vide letter dated 12.05.2023 appointed the Deputy Commissioner as the EO and instructed him to submit the list of Group A Cadre Officers for being appointed as RO to hold election. c) On the recommendation of the EO, the CEA vide order dated 24.07.2023 appointed one Mr.Rudresh as the RO for conducting election to the Board of Mysuru-Chamarajanagara Bank. However, Mr.Rudresh being transferred, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner came to be appointed to this vacancy. Thereafter, on 28.08.2023, the EO directed the RO to commence the election process. On the request of the RO, the EO issued Notification dated 01.09.2023 intending to conduct election to the Board in the timeline between 27.10.2023 and 04.11.2023. The Bank submitted eligible & ineligible voters’ lists to the EO on 02.09.2023. However, in the meanwhile i.e., on the evening of 01.09.2023 itself, the ‘Election Notification’ came to be recalled by the ‘Withdrawal Notification’. d) The Chief Executive of Davanagere Bank vide Letter dated 02.06.2023 had requested the EO to issue Election Notification/Calendar of Events. Accordingly, the EO issued the Notification dated 08.08.2023 specifying the Events of Election scheduled to be held on 26.10.2023. He had also issued an order on 11.08.2023 appointing AROs. The Board submitted eligible & ineligible voters’ List to the EO on 25.08.2023. The EO had approved the Delegate Forms vide Letter dated 05.09.2023. A Letter dated 07.09.2023 was also issued specifying the instructions to be followed by the Bank and to comply with Rule 13D(2)(a) of the 1960 Rules. However, the EO issued Withdrawal Notification on 11.09.2023, recalling the Election Notification dated 8.8.2023. The same was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. e) The Mysuru-Chamarajanagara Bank and its Directors had filed W.P.No.20340/2023 challenging the Withdrawal Notification dated 01.09.2023. Similarly, the Davanagere Bank & the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Nallur, had filed W.P.No.21356/2023. However, the EO issued Withdrawal Notification on 11.09.2023, recalling the Election Notification dated 8.8.2023. The same was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. e) The Mysuru-Chamarajanagara Bank and its Directors had filed W.P.No.20340/2023 challenging the Withdrawal Notification dated 01.09.2023. Similarly, the Davanagere Bank & the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society, Nallur, had filed W.P.No.21356/2023. These two Writ Petitions along with the rest mentioned above, were clubbed & heard in two sets and the impugned Judgments dated 10.10.2023 & 12.10.2023 came to be passed. They are the subject matter of challenge at our hands now. Since broadly common questions of law & facts are involved, we have heard all these appeals together as suggested at the Bar. V. AS TO LEGAL SUBMISSIONS AT THE BAR: a) The thrust of submission of learned Sr. Advocates appearing for the Appellant-DCC Banks is: the subject Election Notifications dated 08.08.2023 & 01.09.2023 in respect of Davanagere Bank and Mysuru-Chamarajanagara Bank respectively, in substance being the Calendars of Events, the election process was set in motion and therefore, the same could not have been interdicted by issuing the Withdrawal Notifications dated 11.09.2023 & 01.09.2023 respectively; therefore, the same are liable to be voided with a direction to hold the election from the stage of Election Notifications, with marginal alterations of timelines, mutatis mutandis. b) Learned Advocate General appearing for the State & its officials and the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the CEA repel the submission of Appellant-Banks principally contending that: the subject Election Notifications by no stretch of imagination can be treated as the Calendars of Events; they are a mere expression of ‘the intention to hold elections’ and therefore, no election process was commenced; there was a lot of preparatory work that was left unaccomplished before issuing the Election Notifications and therefore, the same came to be recalled, justifiably. The publication of list of eligible voters, list of ineligible voters & list of defaulters, is a sine qua non for holding election; the power to issue Election Notification includes the power to rescind/postpone the same vide Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge so far as holding of election is concerned, is unassailable. c) Learned Sr. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge so far as holding of election is concerned, is unassailable. c) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Appellants (who were not parties to the W.Ps) in W.A.No.1392/2023 & W.A.No.1393/2023 vehemently contended that the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of permitting ineligible members of the Board to participate in the ‘elections to be held’, is unsustainable. He emphasized that w.e.f 30.10.2023, the Board of Davanagere Bank ceased to exist, the term of elected Directors having expired on the eve i.e., 29.10.2023. He also argued that in terms of fresh Notification dated 06.11.2023 issued by the DEO during the pendency of these Appeals intending to hold election on 25.01.2024 is unsustainable inasmuch as, the stagewise events sought to be accomplished as per the same, do not fit into the statutory timelines, which are mandatory. d) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the CEA vehemently submitted that the derogatory observations/remarks could not have been made by the learned Single Judge against his client who demonstrably has discharged all the statutory obligations, leaving no scope for any complaint whatsoever. These observations, according to him, could not have been made without giving an opportunity. Therefore, he seeks their expunction. These unpleasant remarks if left unexpunged may affect the institutional efficacy & dignity of CEA, which according to him functions as the State Election Commission that conducts elections to the Local Bodies and therefore, is entitled to same powers & stature. VI. RULINGS CITED AT THE BAR: An Avalanche of following Rulings has been laid on Board in support of respective contentions of the parties. We do not have much quarrel with the pleaded propositions of law, placing reliance on these Rulings. However, there is no scope for the invocability of these propositions in the fact matrix of the case at hand and therefore, we have consciously not referred to any of these Rulings. CITATIONS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF APPELANTS: 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GUNJALLI NAGAPPA, 1976 (1) SCC 204 2 ELECTIION COMMISSION OF INDIA V. ASHOK KUMAR, (2000) 8 SCC 216 3 TRIPURA GOODS TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES 1998 AIR SCW 45 4 UPTRON INDIA VS. SHAMMI BHAN, AIR 1998 SC 1681 5 UNION OF INDIA VS. CITATIONS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF APPELANTS: 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GUNJALLI NAGAPPA, 1976 (1) SCC 204 2 ELECTIION COMMISSION OF INDIA V. ASHOK KUMAR, (2000) 8 SCC 216 3 TRIPURA GOODS TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES 1998 AIR SCW 45 4 UPTRON INDIA VS. SHAMMI BHAN, AIR 1998 SC 1681 5 UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHANLAL LIKUMAL PUNJABI, AIR 2004 SC 1704 6 HINDUSTAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED VS.REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (2009) 14 SCC 302 7 INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS VS. INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, (2002) 5 SCC 685 RULINGS CITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: 1 H.S.MOHAN REDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P.NO.2710/2020, 2 GURUNATH REDDY V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P.NO.226145/2020 3 KISHAN SINGH TOMAR vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD, (2006) 8 SCC 353 4 IN RE SPL 1/2002 , AIR 2003 SC 87 5 M.S.GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, 1978(1) SCC 405 6 VISHAL PORPERTIES (P) LTD VS. STATE OF UP, 2007 (11) SCC 172 7 BONDU RAMSWAMY Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 2010 (7) SCC 129 8 C/M OF SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY., CIVIL MISC. W.P.NO.47233/2012 9 NAGARAMGERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH & OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, W.P.NO.8451/2020 10 H.S.RAJU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P.NOS. 8502 & 8477/2022 (CS-EL/M) & W.P.NO.8477/2022. 11 INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS Vs. INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, (2002) 5 SCC 685 12 RASID JAVED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2010) 7 SCC 781 13 ANOOP BARANWAL v. UNION OF INDIA, (2023) 6 SCC 161 14 BHIM RAO BASWANT RAO PATIL Vs. MADAN MOHAN RAO, 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 871 15 GADDE VENKATESHWARA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (1966) 2 SCR 172 16 BHARATIYA SEVA SAMAJ TRUST vs. YOGESHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL, (2012) 9 SCC 310 17 CM NAGARAJAU VS. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION. W.P.NO.14847/2020 18 SRI. DEEPAK PANDURANGA MAJIKONDI VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P.NOS.57983-57984/2017 19 DHANAJ VS. VIKRAM SINGH, 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 724 20 R. KARUPPAN VS. P K RAJAGOPAL, 2001 (3) CTC 486 21 R. SAKKARAPANI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, W.P.(MD) No.7620/2018 22 ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA VS. ASHOK KUMAR, (2000) 8 SCC 216 VII. AS TO OUR ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: Very many contentions of law were argued at the Bar. A avalanche of following Rulings was laid before us by both the sides: We do not have any quarrel with their ratio, as such. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, W.P.(MD) No.7620/2018 22 ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA VS. ASHOK KUMAR, (2000) 8 SCC 216 VII. AS TO OUR ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: Very many contentions of law were argued at the Bar. A avalanche of following Rulings was laid before us by both the sides: We do not have any quarrel with their ratio, as such. However, the propositions emerging from these decisions being not applicable to the case at hand, we have not ventured to discuss these Rulings. We have examined only such aspects of the matter as would fit into pleadings of the parties and the law applicable. (a) The vehement submission made on behalf of the appellant-Banks that the subject Election Notifications dated 8.8.2023 & 1.9.2023 were, in substance the ‘Calendars of Events’ that had set the election process in motion and therefore that could not have been interdicted by the authorities by issuing Withdrawal Notifications dated 1.9.2023 and 11.9.2023, is difficult to countenance. Reasons for this are not far to seek: There is no much dispute that the subject Election Notifications are relatable to Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules which has the following text: “14. Notification of General Election. (1) The Election Officer shall with the approval of the CEA notify in Form XI the intended election referred to in Section 39AA. (2) The Election Officer shall in such notification specify. (i) the last date for making nominations which shall be the seventh clear day before the date of election. (ii) the date for the scrutiny of nominations, which shall be the day immediately following the last date for making nominations. (iii) the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures, which shall be the fifth clear day before the date of election. (iv) the date on which the poll shall, if necessary, be taken and the hours during which the poll shall be taken; and (v) the date before which the election shall be completed. (3) (a) On the issue of the notification under sub-rule (1), the returning officer shall give a public notice of the intended election in Form XII by displaying it on the notice board in his office and in the office of the cooperative society and at such other places as he deems necessary, inviting nominations for such election. (3) (a) On the issue of the notification under sub-rule (1), the returning officer shall give a public notice of the intended election in Form XII by displaying it on the notice board in his office and in the office of the cooperative society and at such other places as he deems necessary, inviting nominations for such election. (b) in the said notice, the returning officer shall specify among other things the last date for receipt of nominations, the place at which nominations are to be delivered, date of scrutiny of nominations, the last date for withdrawal of candidature, the date on which a poll shall, if necessary be taken and the hours of poll and the date before which elections shall be completed which shall conform to the dates notified in that behalf by the Election Officer under sub-rule (2)”. (b) Apparently Rule 14 has three important parts. Sub-Rule (1) has these specific building blocks: EO, CEA, approval, notification in Form-XI, intention, election. EO is the authority who operates this sub-Rule and he is enjoined to notify the intended election, with the approval of CEA. What is to be notified is the ‘intended election’ as distinguished from the commencement of election process itself. The said Notification should be in the prescribed format i.e., Form-XI which is as under: “Form XI [See Rule 14(1)] NOTIFICATION No. Date: ………………. Whereas elections are to be held to the boards of the co-operative societies whose registered offices are situated in the district of ……………………under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 from the various areas or constituencies as specified in their bye-laws: *(1) to fill the seats of the directors of the board of the primary/secondary/federal/apex co-operative societies, where the terms of office of the boards are expiring on …...(indicate date)……………., before that date. *(2) To fill the vacancy caused by the death/resignation/disqualification/or due to any other reason of ……………………………. area/constituency having become vacant/having been declared vacant. Now, therefore in pursuance of the powers vested under Rule 14(1) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, I …………………….. District Election Officer of ……………………………….. district hereby fixes the following calendar in respect of the said elections. Sl. No. Category of Co-operative Societies Period of elections 1. Primary Societies The returning officers shall determine the day and date of the elections and publish the calendar of events separately 2. District Election Officer of ……………………………….. district hereby fixes the following calendar in respect of the said elections. Sl. No. Category of Co-operative Societies Period of elections 1. Primary Societies The returning officers shall determine the day and date of the elections and publish the calendar of events separately 2. Secondary Societies 3. Federal Societies 4. Apex Societies District Election Officer. *Score out the clause not applicable” (c) What all needs to be stated in the Notification issued under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 14 is specified in sub-Rule (2). There is some variance between what is prescribed in this sub-Rule and what Form-XI mentions, is also true. It hardly needs to be stated that in the case of conflict between the Rule and Schedule to the Rules, ordinarily, the former over-rides the latter. Even otherwise, it is beyond the spec of any doubt that the subject Election Notifications dated 8.08.2023 & 01.09.2023 substantially accord with what is prescribed in Sub-Rule (2) and that they yield space for the steps to be taken on their substratum in terms of sub-Rule (3). (d) Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 speaks of next stage of intended election, by prescribing who should do what, how it should be done & the timelines for doing. This provision has the following building blocks: the Returning Officer, Public Notice, Display Board, Intended Election, Form-XII, Inviting Nominations. Clause (b) of this sub-Rule specifies what all the public notice should contain and that should broadly accord with Rule 14(1) Notification. The authority who operates this Sub-Rule is not the EO unlike in sub-Rule (1) but the RO. Rule 14(1) Notification itself in so many words says: “The returning officers shall determine the day and date of the elections and publish the calendar of events separately.” There is a substantial difference between Form-XI & Form-XII, which becomes clear by their perusal, function & effect. Their texts vary, although they have contextual contiguity. Form XII is as under: “FORM XII [See Rule 14(3)] Notice of Election Notice is hereby given that a general election of directors to the board ………… society …………/election to fill up a casual vacancy on the board of ………… will be held on ………… date ………… between 9 AM and 4 PM at ………… place from ………… area/constituency reserved for Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Women. Notice is also hereby given that the calendar of events for the said election shall be as under: rules or the bye-laws for eligibility for members of the board; a the last date for receipt of nomination papers from the intending candidates (Rule 14-A) On seventh clear day before the date of election (date and time to be indicated) b the scrutiny of the nomination papers by the Returning officer (Rule 14-B) On sixth clear day before the date of election (date and time to be indicated) c the publication of the list of validly nominated candidates by the Returning officer (Rule 14-B(4)) On sixth clear day before the date of election (date and time to be indicated) d The last date for withdrawal of nomination papers by the contesting candidates (Rule 14-C) On fifth clear day before the date of election (date and time to be indicated) e the publication of the list of valid contesting candidates by the Returning officer (Rule 14-D) On fifth clear day before the date of election (date and time to be indicated) f allotment of symbols by the returning officer to the candidates if required (Rule 14-E) On fifth clear day before the date of election (date and time to be indicated) g publication of the list of validly contesting candidates with symbols (Rules 14-E and 14-F) On third clear day before the date of election (date and time to be indicated) h The date and time of poll date ………. time – 9 AM to 4 PM i The date and time of the counting immediately after the close of the polling hours on the polling day itself j declaration of the results by the returning officer immediately after the close of the counting on the polling day itself. (d) the number of vacancies to be filled by election; (e) the area or the constituency (specified in the bye-laws) from which the directors are to be elected; (f) the qualifications, if any, specified in the Act, (g) the disqualifications, specified in the Act, rules or the bye-laws for being elected as a member . of the board. (d) the number of vacancies to be filled by election; (e) the area or the constituency (specified in the bye-laws) from which the directors are to be elected; (f) the qualifications, if any, specified in the Act, (g) the disqualifications, specified in the Act, rules or the bye-laws for being elected as a member . of the board. And ……………… Place: ……………… Date: ……………… Returning Officer.” (e) When a Public Notice of election in Form-XII under sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 is issued by the RO, and displayed on the Notice Board of the Society and in his own office, the Calendar of Events can be said to have been published and the election process commenced, and not when the Notification in Form-XI is issued by the EO under sub-Rule (1). The contents of these two Forms to some extent do overlap, is undeniable; however, that per se does not blur the textual & functional differences lying between them. Metaphorically speaking, it is more a case of ‘boundary dispute’; such a dispute is as to where the boundary line lies, and not as to the very existence of boundary line. Therefore, the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant-banks that Rule 14(1) Notification is tantamount to Calendar of Events that per se sets the election process in motion, cannot be countenanced. The offshoot argument that once the election process commences, it cannot be halted and that the aggrieved should wait till after the process is completed, for laying a challenge to the election as provided under the Act, does not merit consideration. (f) It hardly needs to be stated that there are several steps preparatory to the election, whichever be the body for which it is held. Preparation of list of eligible voters, ineligible voters & default voters, in the very statutory scheme, is a sine qua non for conducting elections in the Co-operative Societies. Whoever be at fault in not accomplishing these preparatory steps, the fact remains as demonstrable from record that this essential preparatory work was not accomplished when the Election Notifications were issued in Form-XI and therefore, they came to be recalled by the issuance of Withdrawal Notifications. Electors are an essential component of the very idea of election and therefore, the list of electors in whatever form and with whatever nomenclature, is a sine qua non for conducting elections. Electors are an essential component of the very idea of election and therefore, the list of electors in whatever form and with whatever nomenclature, is a sine qua non for conducting elections. That is how several provisions in the Act and in the Rules are structured. Significant provisions such as sections 28-B(2) & 29-C(3) are enacted in the statute to disqualify the Board members from gaining entry to the electoral fray, should fault lie at their threshold for not holding the election in the prescribed timeline. That being the position, in their wisdom the EOs rightly recalled Rule 14(1) Notifications, which course is perfectly permissible vide Sec.21 of 1899 Act. We hasten to add that asking the CEA/EOs to go on with the election in terms of subject Election Notifications issued under Rule 14(1) amounts to compelling them to accomplish what is almost impossible. Writ Courts do not compel the performance of something that is apparently contrary to the provisions or policy content of the statute. VIII. AS TO AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF BOARD MEMBERS IF ELECTIONS ARE NOT HELD IN TIME: (a) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Anant Mandagi appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1322/2023 & W.A.No.1392/2023 is right in submitting that the term of Board of Davanagere Bank having expired, the Directors can no longer sit on the saddle of management and therefore, the Administrator has to take charge of the bank keeping his feet in the stead of Board that has spent itself. When the tenure of Board expires, the administrator by operation of law takes charge of the Board, issuance of communication to that effect being only a formality. We are told that the jurisdictional administrator has already assumed charge. His further submission that on the expiry of the term of Board, its Members/office bearers should have no right to participate in the ensuing election that is being held beyond the prescribed timeline, broadly cottons with the statutory policy. (b) The above being said, Mr.Mandagi’s argument that once the elections are not held in the prescribed timeline, whatever be the circumstances, there should be automatic disqualification of members of the Board for being elected for a period of five years, does not have textual support of sections 28-B(2) & 29-C(3)(a) of the Act, howsoever broadly they be construed. (b) The above being said, Mr.Mandagi’s argument that once the elections are not held in the prescribed timeline, whatever be the circumstances, there should be automatic disqualification of members of the Board for being elected for a period of five years, does not have textual support of sections 28-B(2) & 29-C(3)(a) of the Act, howsoever broadly they be construed. Right to vote, right to contest in an election and right to challenge election, are statutory rights, as distinguished from common law rights. If such a right avails to a member of the Board, that cannot be curtailed by unjustifiably attributing fault to him. Several reasons may contribute for not holding the election in time and it is possible that none of them may be attributable to Board members. Subsection (7) of section 29-C provides for the machinery to adjudge as to whether the Board of a Co-operative Society failed to assist the CEA for conducting elections. The said provision has the following text: “Any question as to whether a member of the board was or has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in this section shall be decided by the Registrar after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” (c) It is nobody’s case that such an adjudication took place at the hands of the Registrar, and he ‘decided’ that certain members of the Board have become subject to any disqualification mentioned in section 28-B(2) or section 29-C(3)(a) after giving them a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Apparently it is a quasi-judicial function having civil consequences. Mr.Mandagi’s contention that the section enacts a deeming provision of disqualification, is plainly wrong, to say the least. There is nothing in the text of the provision that creates a fiction of disqualification of the kind, automatically. If the legislature intended to create one, the text of this provision would have been much different. Even otherwise, no material is placed on record to demonstrate a case of electoral disqualification. (d) The vehement submission of Mr.Mandagi that even sans default, the learned Single Judge could not have interdicted disqualification of the Board members from contesting in the ensuing election, is bit difficult to countenance. Even otherwise, no material is placed on record to demonstrate a case of electoral disqualification. (d) The vehement submission of Mr.Mandagi that even sans default, the learned Single Judge could not have interdicted disqualification of the Board members from contesting in the ensuing election, is bit difficult to countenance. There is enough material on record to prima facie show that the Boards of these DCC Banks had informed the CEA well in advance about their term coming to an end in due course and therefore, steps should be taken for holding elections in time. This they did twice. Had the elections been accordingly held, all these Board members could have been in the electoral fray. We repeat with reluctance that none of the Board members has been adjudged to be disqualified, notwithstanding arguable lapses in preparing the list of voters and the like. Law shuns laying disability sans default, as a general rule and no case of exception is made out. The fact remains that the elections are not held in time. However, that cannot be stretched too far to deny a statutory electoral right to the Board members. This aspect having been examined by the learned Single Judge, a direction to restrain their disqualification has been issued to bring a just result, with which learned Advocate General too in his usual fairness, does not falter. We do not find any reason to upset the same. IX. AS TO ADVERSE REMARKS MADE AGAINST THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY AND THE REQUEST FOR THEIR EXPUNCTION: (a) Learned Sr. Advocate Prof. Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the CEA argued for the expunction of certain adverse remarks/observations made by the learned Single Judge, more particularly the one which reads: “In the instant case, the said notice has not been issued by the Election Authority and it is a grave error on the part of the Election Authority in not doing so…”. He drew our attention to the material that was placed on record at the hands of the learned Single Judge whilst hearing the writ petitions, to demonstrate what all steps the CEA had taken preparatory to the intended elections. However, the Single Judge was not much impressed about the alleged discharge of duties by the CEA and therefore, made some caustic remark about this. Perceptions vary and ordinarily, no one is an exception to this general rule. Be that as it may. However, the Single Judge was not much impressed about the alleged discharge of duties by the CEA and therefore, made some caustic remark about this. Perceptions vary and ordinarily, no one is an exception to this general rule. Be that as it may. (b) Having examined the records, we are of a considered opinion that no adverse remarks could have been made against the statutory body like the CEA (Sec. 39-AA) whose institutional dignity has to be protected as of necessity so that the important function namely the holding of free & fair election in the Co-operative Societies all over the State is not affected. Public interest commands that the efficacy & dignity of such a pivotal institution should not be marred in the public opinion. Our Constitution provides for the establishment & recognition of several institutions of significance, one of them being Co-operative Societies. Post 97th Constitutional Amendment w.e.f. 15.02.2012, the right to form a Cooperative Society is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c). This apart, the Constitution provides for legislative process for regulating the periodical formation of managerial bodies in these institutions. In this respect, CEA has got a very crucial role to play and therefore, one needs to exercise a measure of restraint in recording unpleasant remarks against institutions of the kind. (c) We are also conscious that the provisions of Rules that regulate the preparation for conducting elections in the Co-operative Societies do merit recasting so that there would be clarity as to which duty needs to be performed by whom and that by electoral process, new Boards are constituted before the expiry of the tenure of the existing ones. The proviso to section 39A obligates the CEA to ‘start the preparatory work for the preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of the elections during the last six months prior to the expiry of the term of office of the board of a cooperative society.’ The provisions of Rules 13-C & 13-D cast a duty on the CEA to cause preparation & publication of list of eligible electors, list of defaulters and list of alarmed potential defaulters and thereafter to publish the ‘final eligible voters list on or before fifteen clear days prior to the date of election’. Under Rule 13-D(4), a duty is cast on ‘every society to furnish correct information required by the Election Officer to enable him to prepare the electoral rolls, as directed by the Co-operative Election Authority.’ Sub-Rules (5) & (6) of Rule 13-D cast a facilitative duty on the Chief Executive of every Co-operative Society in this regard. (d) We notice that Rule 13-C(2) of 1960 Rules mandates the Chief Executive of the Society to prepare electoral rolls, of course which go for the approval of jurisdictional EO. Rule 13-D(2) authorizes the CEA to publish the Calendar of Events for the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections of the Boards of Co-operative Societies. Rule 13-D(2)(A) directs the EO to take steps for publication of ineligible Voter List. Rule 13-D(4) casts a facilitative duty on every Co-operative Society in this regard. A similar duty also rests on the shoulders of Chief Executive of every Society in terms of sub-Rules (5) & (6) of Rule 13-D. There appears to be some incoherence in the provisions inter se. They yield scope for amplifying the levels of clarity so that one entity does not blame the other and thereby escapes from its obligation, in the matter of taking steps preparatory to and conducting periodical elections. Much deliberation in this regard we do not intend to undertake. (e) In the light of above discussion, we are inclined to accept the submission of Prof.Ravivarma Kumar that all the adverse remarks made in the impugned judgements need to be expunged. That being done, we hasten to add that the CEA may treat itself as advised, hereafter to be more cautious & efficacious in discharging its functions and ensure the holding of periodical elections in very Co-operative Society, leaving no space for accusation/remarks of the kind. ‘There is scope for improvement even in heaven’, said Oscar Wilde (18541900). More is not necessary to specify. X) AS TO DESIRABILITY OF CONDUCTING ELECTIONS TO THE BOARDS OF DCC BANKS EXPEDITIOUSLY: (a) All the above being said, we are of a considered view that the right to form a Co-operative Society itself being a Fundamental Right as already discussed above, the holding of elections to the Boards of DCC Banks, cannot be deferred or delayed indefinitely, as has deplorably happened in the cases at hands. Now that the CEA and the jurisdictional EOs are taking steps on a war footing, the process of elections should be accomplished in true letter & spirit of the impugned judgments. At the same time, we permit marginal relaxation qua the timelines prescribed by the extant Rules and also the period fixed by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 10.10.2023, keeping in view the apparent difficulties the authorities may counter in the exercise. Since this concession is being made in the peculiar circumstances of the case, no one need to have an apprehension that this view would be having any precedential value, for being tapped in any other case. In the above circumstances and with the above observations, these Appeals are disposed off with the following directions: (i) The subject elections shall be conducted preferably within an outer limit of eight weeks, and for that all the stakeholders including the Government shall take facilitative steps; (ii) The jurisdictional Administrator(s) shall take over the functions of the Boards of the Appellant – Cooperative Banks, if already not taken, forthwith; (iii) All adverse remarks/comments appearing in the impugned judgments qua the Cooperative Election Authority shall be treated as having been expunged. (iv) Whatever interim orders that were granted by us are hereby dissolved and the jurisdictional authorities shall take immediate action as enjoined by law. Costs made easy.