JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner’s society is praying for the following reliefs:- “i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 passed by respondent no.5/ Assistant Director/District Assistant Cooperative Election Officer, Haridwar (contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). ii. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authority to permit the petitioner society to participate in upcoming election of Primary Milk Cooperative Society Elections which has been scheduled on 20.05.2023 and 21.05.2023. iii. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. Award cost of the Petition to the present Petitioner.” 2. By the order impugned dated 03.05.2023, passed by the Assistant Director/District Assistant Cooperative Election Officer, Haridwar, the petitioner i.e. Jhabiran Jatt Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh, was excluded from final determination of the constituencies. 3. This impugned order dated 03.05.2023 was passed after taking into consideration an undated complaint of one Kanak Singh Panwar, who is the resident of village Sakoti, District Haridwar, wherein certain allegations with regard to irregularities were raised against the petitioner’s society. 4. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Suyash Pant and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents submit that this undated complaint of Kanak Singh Panwar was issued pursuant to the notice dated 22.04.2023, issued by the Assistant Director/District Assistant Cooperative Election Officer, Dairy Vikas Vibhag, Haridwar, the copy of which is enclosed alongwith the counter affidavit (Annexure:2). 5. The petitioner’s society, on the aforesaid undated complaint submitted it’s response on 02.05.2023, wherein, the Secretary of the said society denied all the allegations as alleged. 6. It is undisputed fact that the order impugned has been passed on the complaint of Kanak Singh Panwar on which opportunity was also given to the petitioner’s society and subsequently the order impugned was passed by which the petitioner society was excluded from the publication of final determination of the constituencies. 7. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner’s society submits that the petitioner’s society has been excluded on the basis of undated complaint and that complaint, in fact, was not entertainable in view of Rule 450 of Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 (for short “Rules 2004”). 7. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner’s society submits that the petitioner’s society has been excluded on the basis of undated complaint and that complaint, in fact, was not entertainable in view of Rule 450 of Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 (for short “Rules 2004”). He submits that under this Rule, only the objections are entertainable in respect of the point of determination as mentioned in Rule 450(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Rules 2004. 8. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner society submits that on the face of this complaint, it is clearly apparent that the same is not in respect of the point of determination, as pointed out in sub clause (a)(b)(c) and (d) of the Rules 450(4) of the Rules 2004 and, therefore, on the basis of this complaint, the petitioner’s society cannot be excluded. 9. This fact has not been disputed either by Mr. Suyas Pant, learned Standing Counsel, who represents respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 5, or by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, who represents respondent No. 4 that the undated complaint of Kanak Singh Panwar was pursuant to the notice published on 22.04.2023 and as it appears from the said notice, it was issued by invoking Section 29(3) of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 read with Rule 450(4) of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004. This fact has also not been disputed by both the counsel for the respondents that the order impugned has been passed after taking into consideration the undated complaint of Kanak Singh Panwar. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the notice was published on 22.04.2023. 10. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner society, challenging the action of the respondents on two aspects. Firstly, the exclusion of the petitioner society from final determination on the undated complaint of Kanak Singh Panwar is totally contrary to the mandate of Rule 450, because on the face of the complaint, it has no nexus with the point of determination, as mentioned in Rule 450(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Rules 2004. 11. Firstly, the exclusion of the petitioner society from final determination on the undated complaint of Kanak Singh Panwar is totally contrary to the mandate of Rule 450, because on the face of the complaint, it has no nexus with the point of determination, as mentioned in Rule 450(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Rules 2004. 11. In response to this, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s society was excluded from the final determination by invoking Rule 450 of Rules 2004 and under Rule 450, every type of complaints can be entertained, therefore, petitioner society was rightly excluded on the basis of undated complaint, which, according to both the counsel for the respondents received on 28.04.2023. 12. So far as this aspect is concerned, the argument, as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents are not acceptable, keeping in view the fact that Rule 450 of Rules 2004 clearly provides that the objection in respect of the issues, as mentioned in sub clause (a) (b) (c) & (d) of Rule 450 are only entertainable, which is also evident from the notice published on 22.04.2023. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the undated complaint, on the basis of which the petitioner’s society was excluded from final determination, is outside the purview of Rule 450 of the Rules 2004. 13. So far as the other aspect with regard to the issue of procedure regarding the period as prescribed under Rule 450 of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Rules 2004 for determination of objection is concerned, this aspect has been dealt with in my previous order dated 02.01.2024, the extract of which are being reproduced as under:- “5. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint does not fall within the purview of Rule 450 of the Uttaranachal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 2004). Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint does not fall within the purview of Rule 450 of the Uttaranachal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 2004). He refers Rule 450 (4)(5)(6)(7)(8), which reads as follows:- “(4) For purpose of election of members of Committee of Management of a co- operative society, or as the case may be, of Delegates to General Body of a co- operative society, the Registrar shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the by-laws of the society before the issue of notice under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 451 for election of a Co-operative Society, or as the case may be, of a class of co- operative Society determine provisionally:- (a) The number of constituencies in which the area of operation of the society shall be divided; (b) The extent of area of each constituency; (c) The total number of seats allotted to each constituency; (d) The number of seats reserved for weaker sections. 5. The Registrar shall thereupon publish in local daily newspaper in local daily newspaper, the provisional determination made under Sub-rule (4) for inviting objections within seven days from the date of such publication. A copy thereof shall also be sent to the concerned society for its comments. 6. The criteria for determination of constituency may be any one or more of the following, namely:- (i) revenue area or areas; (ii) class or classes of membership; (iii) other rational basis in relation to area of operation of society; Provided that the unit of determination in case of primary agricultural credit society shall as far as possible be one or more Gram Sabhas falling in the area of operation of the society. 7. The objections and comments received under Sub-rule (5) shall be considered by the Registrar on the thirteenth day of such publication and thereafter he shall finally determine the constituencies total number of seats and the number of seats reserved for the weaker sections as referred in Clauses(a) to (d) of Sub-rule(4). 8. The final determination of the constituencies under Sub-rule (7) shall be published in the local daily newspaper on the 15th day of such publication and a copy thereof shall be sent to the concerned society and the District Magistrate concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. 8. The final determination of the constituencies under Sub-rule (7) shall be published in the local daily newspaper on the 15th day of such publication and a copy thereof shall be sent to the concerned society and the District Magistrate concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Narendra Bali submits that the objection should be entertained only in respect of the point of determination as pointed in Rule 450(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Rules 2004. He further submits that the objection/complaint of Kanak Singh is not pertaining to any point as mentioned in Rule 450 (a)(b)(c)(d) of the Rules 2004. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 450 of the Rules 2004 has not been followed while entertaining the objection of Kanak Singh and in the final notification the petitioner’s society has been excluded from the electoral roll. Mr. Narendra Bali learned counsel further submits that the provisional determination of Constituency was published on 22.04.2023, wherein as per Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 450, the objections were invited within 7 days which comes to an end on 29.04.2023, and as per Sub-Rule (7), the objection shall be considered on thirteenth day of such publication. 7. Mr. Bali, learned counsel for the applicant submits that thirteenth day will come to an end on 05.05.2023 but before that on 03.05.2023, the objections were decided by which the petitioner was excluded from the electoral roll. He further submits that as per Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 450 of the Rules 2004 on 15th day list of electoral roll shall be published but here in this case final list was published on 04.05.2023 whereas 15th day comes to an end on 07.05.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that final determination of Constituency and electoral roll is contrary to the procedure as prescribed under Rule 450 of the Rules 2004, therefore, the petitioner was wrongly excluded from the electoral roll. 8. Mr. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that final determination of Constituency and electoral roll is contrary to the procedure as prescribed under Rule 450 of the Rules 2004, therefore, the petitioner was wrongly excluded from the electoral roll. 8. Mr. Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the procedure, as prescribed under Rule 450, the final objection has to be decided on 13th day and this section does not provide that the objection may be decided before 13th day, therefore, the correct interpretation of Sub-Rule (7) is that that only on 13th day of such publication, the objection should be decided and 13th day comes to an end on 05.05.2023.” 14. Since notice was published admittedly on 22.04.2023, which is not disputed by the respondents, then, in such a situation, the objections should be decided by 13th day of its publication i.e. by 05.05.2023. But, here, in this particular case, the objections were decided prior to that date i.e. on 03.05.2023 and after deciding the objection, the petitioner’s society was excluded from the electoral roll. Sub Rule (7) of Rule 450, clearly provides that the objection had to be considered on the 13th day of such publication and since the publication was of 22.04.2023, therefore, any objection had to be decided only on 13th day and not prior to that. Meaning thereby, not prior to 13th day and admittedly 03.05.2023 was before the 13th day, therefore, while deciding such objection, the respondents completely overlooked sub Rule (7) of Rule 450 of the Rules 2004. 15. There is another aspect of the matter which is based upon sub-Rule (8) of Rule 450 and as per sub-Rule (8), the electoral roll should be published on 15th day of publication i.e. 15th day from 22.04.2023 and if we compute 15th day, it will come to on 07.05.2023, but, here, in this case, the final list was published on 04.05.2023. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed this fact that the final electoral list was published on 04.05.2023. Therefore, in view of Rule 450(8) of the Rules 2004, the publication of the final list published on 04.05.2023 is also contrary to sub-Rule (8) of Rules 450, which clearly provides that the final determination of constituencies shall be published in the local daily newspaper on 15th day of such publication. 17. Therefore, in view of Rule 450(8) of the Rules 2004, the publication of the final list published on 04.05.2023 is also contrary to sub-Rule (8) of Rules 450, which clearly provides that the final determination of constituencies shall be published in the local daily newspaper on 15th day of such publication. 17. This sub-Rule doesn’t provide that it should be published prior to 15th day and the correct interpretation of sub-Rule (8) is that only on 15th day the final determination of the constituencies should be published. Therefore, the publication of list of final determination of the constituencies published on 04.05.2023 is apparently contrary to sub-Rule (8) of Rule 450 of Rules 2004. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, it is very clear that the order impugned has been passed on the objection, which according to the respondents, was pursuant to the notice published on 22.04.2023, which admittedly was issued by invoking Rule 450 of Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Rules 2004 and as per the discussion, as made above, this objection is completely outside the purview of sub clause (a)(b)(c) & (d) of Rule 450(4) of the Rules 2004 and therefore, the exclusion of the petitioner’s society, pursuant to the impugned order is untenable and hence, is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the order impugned dated 03.05.2023 is quashed. 19. Admittedly, the final publication of the list is not under challenge in the instant writ petition though as observed above, the date when this final publication was made, is contrary to sub-Rule (8) of Rule 450 of Rules 2004. Since this is not under challenge, therefore, this Court is not giving any opinion on this aspect. 20. By the interim order dated 19.05.2023, the petitioner’s society was allowed to participate in the election process, with this rider that his vote shall be kept separate in a sealed cover. 21. It is informed to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that in compliance of the order dated 19.05.2023, the petitioner’s society was permitted to participate in the election process, however, the result has been kept in a separate sealed cover. 22. 21. It is informed to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that in compliance of the order dated 19.05.2023, the petitioner’s society was permitted to participate in the election process, however, the result has been kept in a separate sealed cover. 22. As observed above, this Court clearly observed that the exclusion of the petitioner’s society pursuant to impugned order is apparently illegal, unsustainable and the same has already been quashed, therefore, since pursuant to the interim order dated 19.05.2023 the petitioner’s society was permitted to participate in the election process and the result has been kept in a sealed cover, therefore, a writ of mandamus is being issued to the respondents to open the sealed cover and proceed further in accordance with law. 23. In view of this, the present writ petition is allowed.