Satish K. Agnihotri, J. - (1.)BOTH the petitions involve the same question of law, and as such both the petitions are being disposed of by a common order. In W.P. (C) No. 1368/08, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notices dated 20.02.2008 (Annexure P/1) and 26.02.2008 (Annexure P/2), on the ground that the same are defective and contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 43 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Society Rule, 1962 (for short the Rule, 1962). The petitioner, in W.P. (C) No. 1597/08, seeks a writ of Mandamus or directions to complete the election pursuant to notifications dated 24.01.2008 and 15.02.2008.
(2.)THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the election schedule for election of office bearers of the Jila Sahakari Kendriaya Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Raipur, was declared on 24.01.2008. THEreafter, first meeting was held on 15.02.2008 (Annexure P/3) wherein the date for filing of nomination papers and holding the elections was declared as on 19.02.2008. One Shri P.K. Mishra, Senior Branch Manger was authorized to receive the nomination papers. THEreafter, amended notification dated 20.02.2008 was issued on the ground that the election scheduled to be held on 19.02.2008 could not be conducted. THEreafter, the elections are rescheduled to be held on 03.03.2008.
Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in W.P.(C) No. 1368/08 would submit that the earlier notification dated 15.02.20080 was not accordance with law as no returning officer was notified for conducting the election, thus, subsequent amended election schedule dated 20.02.2008 was required to be issued. Thus, the amended notification be cancelled as in the second notification also no returning officer was notified for conducting the election, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 43 of the Rule, 1962. Per contra, Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1597/08, would submit that the election should be held as per first notification, as the election authorities cannot curtail or stop holding of election once the election has been initiated after declaring the election programme. Thus, the respondent authorities be directed to hold the election as per initial notifications dated 24.01.2008 and 15.02.2008. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit that the election should not be hold on account of certain unavoidable reasons. However, time schedule be given. The authorities undertake to hold election as expeditiously as possible. Despite notice, none appeared for Election Officer and Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Bank Maryadit, Raipur.

(3.)I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the notification dated 24.01.2008 and 15.02.2008, election schedule dated 19.02.2008 as amended dated 20.02.2008 could not be taken to its logical conclusion and the election could not be held. The office bearers could not be elected in Jila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Bank Maryadit, Raipur. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and others, 2000 (80) SCC 216 held that without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct, or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court.
;