ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.04.2023, whereby proceedings of elections of the Chhatargarh Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Chhatargarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Samiti’) has been stayed by the Election Officer. 2. Mr. Divik Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners navigated the Court through the relevant clauses of the byelaws of the Society, more particularly, Clauses 5, 9(4), 9(5)(ii) and 10 thereof and informed that as per Clause 10 of the byelaws, the Board would comprise of 16 Members, out of which, 7 would be elected from Primary Co-operative Society, 5 from private agriculturists/farmers, 3 Members are to be nominated by the State Government/Registrar and one Member being the Manager of the Society. 3. Learned counsel then stated that the petitioners had submitted their nomination for Executive Committee or Members of the Board of Directors pursuant to election notification dated 22.03.2023 issued by the State Co-operative Election Authority. 4. Learned counsel submitted that list of final electoral was proposed and published as per the schedule and the nomination forms were to be submitted at 09:00 a.m. of 06.04.2023. But at 08:00 a.m. of 06.04.2023 abruptly, the elections were stalled by the respondent No.4 - Election Officer. He argued that once the election process has been set in motion, the Election Officer or even the State Government has no jurisdiction or power to stay the same. 5. He submitted that the respondent No.4 has observed that Members of ¼v½ category were not available, while passing the impugned order, but the elections cannot be stayed for this reason, more particularly, when sufficient number of Members/voters of ¼c½ category were available to elect 5 Members from their category ¼c½ , as the list of electoral comprised of 92 Members. 6. He argued that if the elections are held as scheduled, 5 Members would be elected from ¼c½ category followed by 3 nominated Members of State Government and 1 Manager, then, it would constitute requisite quorum of 9 Members and therefore, the decision of the Election Officer that requisite quorum would not be available is factually incorrect. 7. 6. He argued that if the elections are held as scheduled, 5 Members would be elected from ¼c½ category followed by 3 nominated Members of State Government and 1 Manager, then, it would constitute requisite quorum of 9 Members and therefore, the decision of the Election Officer that requisite quorum would not be available is factually incorrect. 7. He argued that if the Election Officer was of the view that requisite number of Members of the Board would not be available, he could not have stayed the process, as there is no statutory power or jurisdiction with him to do so. He added that in such event, the State or the Registrar can exercise the power to dissolve the Society (if deemed appropriate) on the ground of the functioning of the Society, but in any case, the election process which has been initiated could not have been stayed as has been done in the instant case. 8. Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that when the final voter list or electoral was prepared, it transpired that not even a single voter from ¼v½ category was available and therefore, it was impossible to elect requisite 7 Members from Members of ¼v½ category and since no Member from ¼v½ category Members could be elected which is mandatory to form a valid Board, the Election Officer had no other option, but to stall the process of election. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that the petitioners’ contention which appear to be legally sound cannot be accepted, particularly when the constitution of Board itself is in doubt, as no Member from ¼v½ category Members could be elected. He submitted that he would advice the State Government to undertake election process afresh and in such event, the State would try to ensure that requisite number of Members/electoral from ¼v½ category are available. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It will be relevant to reproduce relevant clauses of the byelaws:- 12. It is not in dispute that the constitution of Board requires 7 Members from ¼v½ category and as per the electoral prepared, there is no Member from ¼v½ category and therefore, election to the post of Board of Directors from the Members of ¼v½ category is impossible. 13. It will be relevant to reproduce relevant clauses of the byelaws:- 12. It is not in dispute that the constitution of Board requires 7 Members from ¼v½ category and as per the electoral prepared, there is no Member from ¼v½ category and therefore, election to the post of Board of Directors from the Members of ¼v½ category is impossible. 13. But then, the question arises as to whether the election process can be stalled at the eleventh hour? According to this Court, the answer is a clear NO. 14. This Court is of the considered view that the election process once triggered cannot be stalled, except in the event (natural calamity/breakdown of law and order) envisaged under section 34(6) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2001’). Admittedly none of the eventuality mentioned in section 34(6) of the Act of 2001 is prevailing. 15. When the legislature has not conceived the situation like the one in hand for the purpose of staying the election, the Election Officer cannot clothe himself with the power which is not otherwise conferred upon him – he cannot abort the process of election abruptly. 16. On the facts, may be the arguments advanced by learned Additional Advocate General appears to be attractive that there would be no Member from ¼v½ category in the Board of Directors, but if the byelaws of the Society are taken into account, it provides that 7 Members would be from out of ¼v½ category. But when no Members or requisite numbers of Members from ¼v½ category are not available, it cannot be said that the very constitution of the Board is vitiated. 17. True it is that, there is no Member from ¼v½ category so far as electoral is concerned. But had there been less Members than 7 Members of category ¼v½ and all of them could be elected as Members of the Board then, in such event, the Members of the Board from ¼v½ category Members would obviously be less than 7. Could Election Officer stall the process! - Certainly not. 18. Such being the position, this Court is of the view that simply because the possibility of filling of the vacant posts from particular category is bleak or nil, the election process cannot be stalled or withdrawn. 19. Could Election Officer stall the process! - Certainly not. 18. Such being the position, this Court is of the view that simply because the possibility of filling of the vacant posts from particular category is bleak or nil, the election process cannot be stalled or withdrawn. 19. The situation as contemplated by respondent No.4 that the quorum will not be complete or there would be no Member from Members of category ¼v½ , may be compared by a situation as envisaged in section 30(1)(b) of the Act of 2001, but then in such event, the separate proceedings are required to be taken up by the Zonal Registrar or the Registrar as the case may be but the Election Officer cannot preempt the situation by deferring the elections. 20. In view of what has been discussed above and following the judgment dated 17.05.2022, passed at Jaipur Bench in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9754/2021 (Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), this Court is firmly of the view that the election process once notified, cannot be stopped in a midway. 21. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 22. The impugned notice/order dated 06.04.2023, is hereby quashed and set aside. 23. The Election Officer – respondent No.4 is directed to re-notifiy the date of holding election within a period of 15 days from today. 24. Needless to observe that the elections will be held on the basis of the electoral/final voter list published on 03.04.2023 (Annexure-4) and that too from the stage of filing nomination forms – the point where the elections were stayed. 25. It is hereby made clear that after the election process is concluded and the State/competent authority finds that the functioning of the Society is not possible or there is a statement in the constitution or functioning of the Society, they shall be free to take appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. 26. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.