HARSHA DEVANI, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Sahil Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the first respondent, and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the second respondent.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case and more particularly, the urgency of the matter, the case was taken up for final hearing today.

3. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the communication dated 22.03.2019 issued by the first and second respondents respectively, Annexure 'A' collectively, to the petition. The petitioners further seek permission to hold the special general body meeting within a period of fifteen days or as early as possible or any such date that may be fixed by this Court and further seek a declaration that the Code of Conduct shall not come in the way of the first petitioner Union in holding the special general body meeting and a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the holding of the special general body meeting on such date as may be permitted by this Court.

4. The first petitioner Union is a co-operative society registered under the erstwhile Mumbai Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and is deemed to be a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioners that the last election of members of managing committee of the first petitioner Union was held on 28.11.2015 and the result was declared on 28.11.2015, wherein, sixteen members of managing committee were elected. It appears that out of sixteen elected members, thirteen members belonged to one panel, whereas three members belonged to the opposite panel. Out of the thirteen members, one member got disqualified and, therefore, the total number of members belonging to the majority panel was reduced to twelve.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioners that every time when the first petitioner Union issued agenda for the general body meeting, the minority group of three directors, who were part of the custodian committee appointed by the State Government under section 74D of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, tried to see that such meeting is not held. In the memorandum of petition, various instances have been referred where the general body meeting could not have been held on account of these three directors.

4.2 On 08.03.2019, the first petitioner Union had issued an agenda notice for the special general body meeting which was to be held on 24.03.2019. The said agenda notice was posted on 09.03.2019 to all the 1301 members and invitees. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner Union has 1128 affiliated milk societies as members and 99 individual members and 70 other societies as members and that the agenda notice had been sent to all the aforesaid members and more than 1000 persons were to remain present in the special general body meeting. It is alleged in the petition that the three directors belonging to the minority group, did not want the petitioner Union to pass any resolution even for the benefit of its members and, therefore, used the State machinery to stall the holding of special general body meeting on 24.03.2019. Towards that end, a representation was made through the Hitrakshak Samiti to the District Registrar and also to the first respondent – District Election Officer, for postponing the special general body meeting.

4.3 On 22.03.2019, by the impugned communication, the first respondent directed the first petitioner Union to postpone the special general body meeting in view of the code of conduct having come into force. It is the case of the petitioners that the code of conduct came into force on 10.03.2019 on the declaration of the Lok Sabha elections, before which, the agenda notice dated 08.03.2019 had already been issued. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no violat