R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) -Does postponment of date of poll by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in exercise of power under Rule 440 of the Rules framed under Cooperative Societies Act results in nullifying the election process completed in accordance with election schedule announced prior to adjournment of poll is the legal issue that has been raised in these petitions.
(2.) PROCEDURE for election of members of cooperative societies notified under sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act is provided by rules 439 to 444-A of Part IV of Chapter XXIX of Rules for election in Cooperative Societies. Under these rules the power to fix the date of poll has been vested in the Registrar which has to be carried out by the District Magistrate through election officer for different areas or for different cooperative societies. Once the date of poll has been fixed the election officer has been empowered to fix the time schedule by giving not less than fifteen days notice from the date of poll intimating the programme of election which includes displaying of provisional voter list, its finalisation, filing of nomination, their scrutiny, withdrawal, allocation of symbol and the date, time and place of poll. Proviso to Rule 440 reads as under : " Provided further that the Registrar may, in special circumstances after recording reasons therefor, allow extension in time schedule of a co-operative society or class or classes of co-operative societies or of co-operative societies of any area or areas but such extension in time schedule shall be subject to the provisions of section 29 of the Act. Therefore, the Registrar can extend the time schedule. But it can be in special circumstances and after recording reasons. Election of Co-operative Societies is stated to have been announced in the State and date of poll was fixed by Registrar twice or thrice prior to 31st July or 1st August, 1988. But it was extended for one or the other reason before the date for nomination etc. expired. On 23rd July, the Registrar once more in exercise of its power under Rule 440 extended the date of poll from 31st July or 1st August to 12th or 13th September as Kharif season was at its peak. Whether the reason for extending the poll is a special circumstance within meaning of the proviso need not be gone into as the petitioners in these petitions are aggrieved not by extension as much as by announcement of fresh time schedule by the Elective Officer including filing of nominations etc. Rule 441 (3) provides for time-schedule and what it shall contain. It is extracted below :- ' 441 (3) The Election Officer shall display at the notice board of the society the following programme of election- (i) the date for display of provisional voters' list, (ii) the date, time and place for filing objections and their disposal, (iii) the date for display of final voters' list, (iv) the date, time and place for filing nominations, (v) the date, time and place of scrutiny of nominations, (vi) the date, time and place for withdrawal of nomination, (vji) the date, time and place for allocation of election symbols and display of final nominations, (viii) the date, time and place of poll : Provided that the place of poll shall be the office/headquarters of the society unless for reasons to be recorded by the election officer it may be some public place as near the office/headquarter of the society as may be possible and notified in the programme of notice, (ix) the place at which voters' list can be inspected by any voter, (x) the names of the constituencies including reserved constituency and the number of persons to be elected. " The processes mentioned in the rule are in sequence one followed by other. After every process has been completed then the poll takes place in the end. The question is if the Registrar extends the date of poll that is the eighth process in the order it is mentioned in the Rule then does it necessarily mean that the entire process has to be gone afresh. The power under Rule to extend time schedule includes the power to extend the entire schedule or a part of it. For instance, the Registrar directs that elections shall not be held for one year it may appear reasonable to postpone the entire schedule as the voter list, nomination etc. may require fresh scrutiny. But if the postponement is for few weeks, the Registrar extends a part of time schedule only. Whether the Registrar extended the entire time schedule or part of it shall depend on the order itself. In the order dated 23rd July what has been extended is the date of poll. It is conspicuously silent about any other process mentioned in sub-Rule (3). Even in the counter affidavit it has not been stated that the Registrar directed entire election .process to be gone afresh. Reliance has been placed by the learned Standing Counsel on Itwari v. Registrar Cooperative Society, 1988 ALJ 392 and it is argued that the order dated 23rd July 1988, resulted in extension of entire time schedule and the Election Officer is entitled to fix fresh time schedule including display of voters' list, filing of nomination etc. It was a case where the Registrar passed two orders' one extending the date of poll and other directing the District Magistrate to fix the time schedule afresh. There is no such direction in these petitions. Even in Sheomangal Singh v. Registrar Cooperative Societies, 1982 UPLBEC 367 it appears there were two orders. The Bench in Itwari's case observed :- " It is wrong to suggest that power of extension granted by the proviso could be exercised by the Registrar only for changing the date of poll and not of the entire schedule preceding it." We respectfully agree with these observations. As observed earlier, the Registrar could extend the entire time schedule but if he exercise the power to extend only a part of time schedule by specifically mentioning it in the order then it is difficult to agree that it should be deemed that it should be read as extending the entire schedule. Under Rules when date of poll is fixed, the Election Officer announces the time schedule. But he performs this duty on behalf of the Registrar as it is the Registrar under whose direction and control the elections are held. Therefore, the Registrar may, in his supervisory or controlling power alter or modify the part or whole of the time schedule but it cannot be vice-versa. If the Registrar chose to extend only a part of the time schedule announced by the Election Officer then the Election Officer could not assume power and extend the time schedule in respect of other process. But if in any society the process as indicated in the time schedule had not been completed for one or the other reason and the nominations had not been filed and symbols not allotted then in these societies the Election Officer shall be entitled to fix fresh time schedule from the stage which had been completed earlier. In absence of any direction or order by the Registrar, the Election Officer cannot, on its own, change the time schedule. The power of extension is of Registrar and not of Election Officer. Therefore, the election on 12th and 13th September, 1988 of the Cooperative Societies should be held as directed by the Registrar on election process completed on earlier time schedule.
(3.) IN the result these petitions succeed and are allowed. A direction is issued to opposite party to hold the election as scheduled on 12th and 13th September, 1988 on basis of nominations etc. filed on time schedule announced when election was to be held on 31st July and 1st August, 1988. Where there was no contest for any seat as not more than one nomination was filed within time fixed by election officer in the time schedule announced for elections to be held on 31st July and 1st August, 1988 the result shall be declared in accordance with rule 443 of uncontested candidates after poll of other contested seats is held on 12th and 13th September, 1988. Petitions allowed.;