( 1 ) DIRECTORS of certain specified co-operative societies are occupying the chairs even beyond the term for which they have secured mandate. Should the orders of the Court and provisions of law be interpreted in such a way that majority of them can continue to hold the office for at least one year more if not two ? Should the Court substituted the mandate of the electorate by its order? These are some of the questions which need to be examined and answered.

( 2 ) BY filing Special Civil Application No. 787 of 1988 respondent No. 1 original petitioner in Special Civil Application prayed that the elections of the Directors of the Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Limited respondent No. 2 in the petition be not held simultaneously but the same be held by rotation at the interval of one year on the basis of the constituencies represented by respective Directors whose term have expired first. By filing Special Civil Application No. 3351 of 1988 the petitioner in that petition also made similar prayer in respect of the election of the Board of Directors of Mehsana District Co-operative Purchase and Sales Union Ltd. Both these petitions came up for hearing together with other two petitions being Spl. C. A. No. 2560 of 1987 and 3171 of 1988 which pertained to the election of Board of Directors of Baroda District-Co-operative Milk Producer Union Limited.

( 3 ) IT was contended by the petitioners that in view of the previous litigation in respect of the amended provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 and particularly Sec. 74 of the Act and in view of certain orders passed by the Supreme Court in the pending proceedings before it the election of Board of Directors can be held only by rotation and not simultaneously. In other words it is contended that election for 1/3 number of Board of Directors can be held at the interval of each year and that is the way in which the election should proceed. The respondents appeared in the petition and contended that of the relevant provisions of the statue and the orders of the Supreme Court are correctly interpreted the election should be held for the entire Board of Directors simultaneously and there is no room for holding that the election be held by rotation and prolong the election process for a period of three years. The learned single Judge after referring to the relevant provisions of the statute bye-laws and orders passed by the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the election of the entire Board of Directors was required to be held simultaneously and the learned single Judge rejected all the petitions as per his judgment and order dated 8/09/1988 Against the aforesaid judgment and order in two petitions Letters Patent Appeals have been filed i. e. in respect of Spl. C. A. No. 787 of 1988 and in respect of Spl. C. A. No. 3351 of 1988. It appears that petitioners in other two petitions Spl. C. A. No. 2560 of 1987 and Spl. C. A. No. 3171 of 1988 pertaining to election of Baroda District Co-op. Milk Producers Union have not filed L. P. A.

( 4 ) AFTER the aforesaid judgment was delivered one more petition being Spl. C. A. No. 6276 of 1988 was filed by Panchmahal District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Substantially praying for the same or the similar type of relief in respect of the election of the Board of Directors of the Bank. That petition has been rejected by an order dated 16/09/1988 by this Court (Coram: G. T. Nanavati J.) stating that in view of the decision in Special Civil Application No. 2560 of 1987 and other allied matters the petition is required to be rejected summarily. Against that decision Letters Patent Appeal No. 341 of 1988 is filed. This is how all these three Letters Patent Appeals are before us. At the request of and with the consent of all the learned Advocates appearing for the parties all these three L. P. As. are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

( 5 ) IN order to understand the cont