JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. The above noted four appeals are directed against the interim order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in entertaining a challenge to the note put up by the Returning Officer in the Election Programme published on 09.02.2024 which suggests that the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies would be binding, whereby one of the amendment proposed in the bye-laws has been approved. 2. The appellants before us are the District Co-operative Union, namely Sabarkantha Jilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadan Singh Limited impleaded through the Senior Manager (HR, Marketing) and few members of the said Union. 3. Learned Single Judge has noted that the election of the specified Co-operative Societies are governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1982 (“the Rules’1982) and commences from the stage of delimitation of the constituencies, publication of the provisional list of voters and further followed by Rule 5, Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Rules’ 1982 till the preparation of the final list of voters. It was noted that there is no dispute about the fact that the final list of voters was published on 09.02.2024 before passing of the order by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies amending the bye-laws. It was prima facie opined that such amended byelaws cannot be applied retrospectively and prospective effect can be given or else it may result in taking away or alter the duly vested rights of a member in a society. 4. Further noticing decision in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 509 , it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the rules framed for election of a specified society are a complete Code in itself providing for the entire process of election, beginning from the stage of preparation of provisional voter list, decision on the objection by the Collector, finalization of the electoral rolls, holding of elections and declaration of results of the election. The preparation of the provisional voters list would, therefore, be an integral part of the election process. 5. On the above two counts, the learned Single Judge has stayed the operation and implementation of the Note No. ‘3’ contained in the Election Programme dated 09.02.2024. 6. The preparation of the provisional voters list would, therefore, be an integral part of the election process. 5. On the above two counts, the learned Single Judge has stayed the operation and implementation of the Note No. ‘3’ contained in the Election Programme dated 09.02.2024. 6. It may further be noted that the Note No.’3’ in the Election Programme was pertaining to the amendment in the bye-laws of the Society, which was approved by the Registrar on 09.02.2024 itself. The question before us, thus, is as to whether the amended bye-laws which were approved on 09.02.2024 by the Registrar, can be invoked/ applied in the election process which was already set in motion with completion of the preliminary stages of election such as delimitation of constituencies, preparation of the provisional list of voters, consideration of objection and declaration of the final list of voters. 7. All the above noted processes were admittedly completed by 09.02.2024 when the final list of voters were published. 8. To answer the above question, we raised a pertinent query to the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants as to what would be the dates of commencement of the election process, in the instant case. 9. The learned Senior counsels have made their submissions in different ways to assert that the election process can be said to have commenced from the date of declaration of the election programme in accordance with the Rule 16 of the Rules’ 1982. 10. Mr. Prakash Jani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Annual General meeting of the Board of the Societies was called in the month of June, 2023 (30.06.2023), to amend the bye-laws in relation to the election of the Society; 743 members voted in favour of the amendment, whereas only three(3) opposed. It was forwarded to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who had granted approval on 09.02.2024. The Election Officer was appointed on 31.01.2024 and electoral rolls or the final voters list was prepared and published on 09.02.2024. It was submitted that drawing the schedule for elections by the publication of the Election Programme under Rule 16 of the Rules’ 1982 would be the date of commencement of the election process and in the instant case, it would be 09.02.2024, when the Returning Officer has published the schedule for elections. It was submitted that drawing the schedule for elections by the publication of the Election Programme under Rule 16 of the Rules’ 1982 would be the date of commencement of the election process and in the instant case, it would be 09.02.2024, when the Returning Officer has published the schedule for elections. The contention is that the amendments are in tune with the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court and the process of nomination had commenced on 12.02.2024, which was about to complete on 20.02.2024. There was, thus, no occasion for the learned Single Judge to entertain the writ petition filed on 12.02.2024 in the midst of when the election process. It was argued that the election process cannot be said to have commenced prior to 09.02.2024 when the schedule for election programme was published. Placing various decisions of the Apex Court, it was sought to be submitted that no right much less any indefeasible right can be said to have been accrued in favour of any member with the declaration of the voters list prior to 09.02.2024. It was argued that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge amounts to taking of a final decision in the writ petition and, therefore, the appeals are liable to be allowed outrightly. 11. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, had taken the Court through the scheme of Rules’ 1982 to submit that the election process as per the statutory scheme can be bifurcated into two parts; first part comprised of the Rules 3 to 8 which deals with the eligibility of voters, the second part of the process starts from Rule 16 with the drawing of the schedule for election and ends with declaration of the result. The specific contention is that the applicable bye-laws on the date of the election will apply and the Returning Officer is duty bound to conduct the election as per the Rules and the bye-laws, as per Rule 11 of the Rules’ 1982. It was further contended that once the amended byelaws are approved by the Registrar, the old bye-laws cease to exist and cannot be applied in the second part of the process of election i.e. from the date of drawing the Schedule for elections onwards. It was further contended that once the amended byelaws are approved by the Registrar, the old bye-laws cease to exist and cannot be applied in the second part of the process of election i.e. from the date of drawing the Schedule for elections onwards. The process of nomination and other subsequent proceedings leading to the declaration of result are to be conducted by applying the amended bye-laws. 12. Much efforts have been made by the learned Senior counsels for the appellants to take the Court through the amended provisions of the bye-laws to assert that the amendment in the bye-laws was brought in line to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2015(13) SCC 401 . It was vehemently argued that the result of the interim order will be that the election process which would be conducted contrary to the existing bye-laws cannot be challenged even after conclusion of the elections. The approval of the bye-laws by the Registrar affirmed the wishes of a majority of 743 members of the Board, who were in favour of the amendment. The majority having voted in favour of the bye-laws, a minuscule number of members (three in number) cannot be permitted to assail the process of election, which is being conducted strictly in accordance with the bye-laws, amended as on 09.02.2024. 13. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents seek to submit that once the amendments are in force with the approval of the Registrar being in tune with the decision of the Apex Court, no exception can be taken to the act of the Returning Officer in putting up Note No.’3’ in the Schedule of the Election Programme published on 09.02.2024. The submission is that the election process commenced from the date of declaration of the provisional list, i.e. 30.01.2024. The writ petition having been field on 12.02.2024 after the publication of the election schedule on 09.02.2024 ought not to have been entertained. The interim order under challenge amounts to interference in the process of election and thus cannot be sustained. 14. Mr. The writ petition having been field on 12.02.2024 after the publication of the election schedule on 09.02.2024 ought not to have been entertained. The interim order under challenge amounts to interference in the process of election and thus cannot be sustained. 14. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/original writ petitioners, in rebuttal, has taken us through the provisions of the Rules’ 1982 to submit that the applicable bye-laws on the date of commencement of the election process will govern the entire process of election. The amended bye-laws though may have been approved on 09.02.2024 cannot be applied in the process of election which has commenced on 30.01.2024 with the declaration of the provisional voters list. It was further contended that the preparation of voters list is integral part of the election process. The position as on the date of publication of provisional voters list by including the particulars in accordance with the Rule 5 of the Rules’ 1982, which stand crystallized and the bye-laws as prevalent on the said date has to be applied. 15. It was further contended that the reference of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Limited (supra) to defend the action of the returning Officer is only a shield to save the illegal activities of the appellants. It was contended that for the election of the Managing Committee of the Union which is due for the current year, the appellant Union had passed a Resolution dated 30.06.2023 and the proposal was sent some time in the month of July, 2023 which came to be accepted by the Registrar only on 09.02.2024. In Lavad Suit filed by one of the members before the Board of Nominees challenging the resolution dated 30.06.2023, initially an exparte injunction was granted which came to be vacated. A writ petition was preferred being Special Civil Application No. 21661 of 2023, wherein on 26.12.2023, the statement was made by the appellant Union placing on record the communication dated 25.12.2023 that the elections shall be conducted as per the old bye-laws. On the basis of the said statement and upon written instructions received, the petitioner therein withdrew the writ petition. 16. In the interregnum, Special Civil Application No. 751 of 2024 was filed seeking direction to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to take a decision in the matter of amendment proposed in the bye-laws. On the basis of the said statement and upon written instructions received, the petitioner therein withdrew the writ petition. 16. In the interregnum, Special Civil Application No. 751 of 2024 was filed seeking direction to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to take a decision in the matter of amendment proposed in the bye-laws. A statement was also made on behalf of the State Government that the hearing was fixed on 31.01.2024 for deciding on the question of bye-laws. In view of the said development, an application seeking revival of the writ petition, namely Special Civil Application No. 21661 of 2023 was filed, which was allowed; the writ petition has been revived and is pending. A communication dated 25.01.2024 was issued by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies addressed to the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himmatnagar communicating the instructions issued by the Registrar to conduct the election as per the old bye-laws. It was, thus, contended by the original petitioners before the writ Court that it was known to everyone that the elections would be held as per the existing bye-laws. However, in one day on 09.02.2024, all decisions were taken to upturn the settled position. 17. The attention of the Court is invited to the observations of the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.13 of the impugned order, wherein it is recorded that all events namely, the publication of final voters list as per Rule 7 of Rules 1982; order passed by the Registrar approving one amendment in the bye-laws, namely bye-law No.35 (A)(1); communication addressed by the District Registrar to the Election Officer informing about the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies amending the bye-laws; communication addressed by the appellant Union to the Election Officer, requesting it to conduct the election as per the amended byelaws; publication of the Election Programme under Rule 16 of the Rules’ 1982 attaching the Note No.’3’ indicating that the election shall be conducted as per the amended bye-laws, were completed in one day and the entire structure of the elections has been changed. 18. 18. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge by staying the effect of Note No.3 contained in the Election Programme dated 09.02.2024 declared by the Returning Officer, has simply ensured that the rule of law is followed and the elections are held in a free and fair manner in conformity with the Rules and the applicable bye-laws of the Society. The order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to result in interference in the process of election. 19. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, the question as posed by us, noted above to be addressed by us by considering two issues; firstly are as to what would be the date of commencement of the election process and secondly, whether it was open for the Returning Officer to decide that the election would be held as per the amended bye-laws, if it is found that the process has already commenced prior to 09.02.2024, i.e. the date of declaration of the schedule of the Election Programme. 20. To answer the said issues, we may go through the provisions of the Rules, 1982 which apply to the elections to the Committees of Specified Societies as per the Rule 1(3) of the Rules’ 1982. Rule 3 mandates the District Registrar to send a report to the Collector, before drawing up the accounts, the details of the Societies in his District along with the two copies of the bye-laws of each of the such Societies. Rule 3A deals with the process of delimitation of constituencies in every society in which the election to the Committee is scheduled to be held. Rule 4 pertains to preparation of provisional list of voters for the year in which general election is due to be held, also incorporating the persons who are members on the date of drawing up the accounts of the year in which such election is due. It talks of preparation of constituencies as per the bye-laws. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 states that while sending the provisional list of voters, every society shall send in writing to the Collector, a list of members, who are disqualified to vote as per the provisions of the Act Rule or its bye-laws. 21. Rule 5 provides for the particulars which are to be included in the provisional list of voters. 21. Rule 5 provides for the particulars which are to be included in the provisional list of voters. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that where the society is a member of the specified society, the specified society shall call for the name of the delegate duly authorised to vote at an election on behalf of the affiliated society, so as to reach it within 10 days next after the date of drawing up the accounts. The specified society shall include in the list of voters the names of all such delegates as have been communicated to it before the date fixed for publication of the provisional list. A society which has communicated the name of its delegate shall, by like resolution be permitted to change the name of its delegates upon the sixth day before the date appointed by the Collector under Rule 16 of said Rules for making nominations. 22. Rule 6 provides for inviting claims and objections, and the decision thereon by the Collector. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 states that the list as finalized by the Collector after deciding all claims and objections shall be final list of voters, which is to be displayed on the notice Board of the office of the Collector, the District Registrar concerned and the Society, as per Rule 7. 23. Rule 9 provides for appointment of Returning Officer by the Collector for one or more constituencies of Society as specified in its bye-laws. 24. Rule 11 categorically states that it is the duty of the Returning Officer that the elections are effectively conducted in the manner provided in the Act, Rules and bye-laws made thereunder. The stage of drawing the schedule for elections under Rule 16 reaches after appointment of the Returning Officer, preparation of the list of Polling Stations, appointment of Presiding Officers and Polling Officers. The schedule for elections as drawn in Rule 16 shall contain the schedule of dates from the stage of making nominations to the declaration of the results of voting. 25. Rule 17 provides for publication of the order of the Collector under Rule 16 on the notice board of the concerned officers and the daily newspapers. The process of nomination is then started. The Rules’ 1982 further provides the procedure for completion of the election process and disposal of the election papers. 25. Rule 17 provides for publication of the order of the Collector under Rule 16 on the notice board of the concerned officers and the daily newspapers. The process of nomination is then started. The Rules’ 1982 further provides the procedure for completion of the election process and disposal of the election papers. Rule 74 provides a remedy to challenge the election by way of election petition and is couched in negative language restraining anyone to challenge the election, except by an election petition presented to the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section 145-U of the Rules’ 1982. 26. From the careful reading of various provisions of the Rules’ 1982 it is clearly indicated that as per the procedure prescribed therein, after the submission of the report by the District Registrar to the Collector along with the copies of the bye-laws of the society and with the process of delimitation of the constituencies for the purpose of election, the election process starts. In the instant case, as admitted by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents through, the Collector, Himmatnagar-Sabarkantha, the election process commenced on 30.01.2024, the date on which the provisional list of voters was published. The Rules’ 1982 is a complete Code in itself. A reading of various provisions of Rules beginning from Rule 3 to Rule 16, as noted hereinabove, it is evident that every stage of the election process is to be conducted in accordance with the Rules and bye-laws of the Society. 27. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that though the Returning Officer is required to conduct the elections as per the Rules and the bye-laws and the first stage of the process from Rule 3 to Rule 8 had been conducted in accordance with the unamended (existing) bye-laws, but with the amendment of the bye-laws with effect from 09.02.2024, the second stage from Rule 9 onwards is to be conducted in accordance with the amended bye-laws. 28. We find inherent fallacy in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the simple reason that one process of election cannot be bifurcated in two stages for applying different rules, sets of bye-laws at different stages. We do not even find any reason to deal with the above contention. 28. We find inherent fallacy in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the simple reason that one process of election cannot be bifurcated in two stages for applying different rules, sets of bye-laws at different stages. We do not even find any reason to deal with the above contention. To our understanding, the settled principle of law is that the Rules, bye-laws applicable on the date of commencement of the election process are to be adhered to by the Returning Officer to complete the whole process strictly in view of the clear mandate of Rule 11 of the Rules’ 1982. Once it is clear and could not be disputed successfully that in the instant case, the election process commenced on 30.01.2024 with the publication of the provisional list of voters as per Rule 4 of the Rules’ 1982, it was not open for the Returning Officer to change the ‘Rule of the game’. The Note No.’3’ put up by the Returning Officer to the Election Programme published on 09.02.2024 is in clear violation of the Rule 11 of the Rules’ 1982. We, therefore, do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge in holding that the Election Officer is obliged to act as per the bye-laws and the declaration of the Election Programme only being one of the stages of the election, the process having already commenced, the operation and implementation of the Note No.3 contained in the Election Programme dated 09.02.2024 is liable to be stayed. 29. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Senior Counsels for the appellants that in entertaining the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has made any effort in interfering with the process of election. Rather, it seems to us that the learned Single Judge by passing the order impugned has ensured that the rule of law is followed and the elections are conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules’ 1982 and as per the applicable bye-laws of the Society as on the date of commencement of the election process. Rather, it seems to us that the learned Single Judge by passing the order impugned has ensured that the rule of law is followed and the elections are conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules’ 1982 and as per the applicable bye-laws of the Society as on the date of commencement of the election process. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the preparation of the provisional voters list is an integral part of the election process and the entire process of election beginning from the stage of preparation of the provisional voters list, finalization of electoral rolls, holding of elections and declaration of the result of the elections shall have to be conducted in view of the scheme of the Act and Rules’ 1982 and the unamended (existing) byelaws applicable to the Society. We are in sync with the observation of the learned Single Judge that the amended byelaws cannot be given retrospective effect and is to be treated as prospective. 30. For the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the challenge. The appeals are dismissed, accordingly. Consequently, connected Civil Applications also stand dismissed.