When the election is stopped under Rule 35(3)(p) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, the election process can be continued from the stage at which it was stopped.

The Election to the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent was scheduled to be held on 23-6-1991. The last date of receipt of nomination paper was 13-6-1991 and the scrutiny of the same was to take place on 14-6-1991, The election notification Ext. P1 was published in Kerala Kaumudi Malayalarn daily on 25-5-1991. The petitioner submitted his nomination paper to the 2nd respondent. There were 32 nomination papers, and on 14-6-1991 when second respondent was scrutinizing the 13th nomination pa per a stranger trespassed into the office room and snatched away the nomination paper. The 2nd respondent informed the police and also sent message to 3rd respondent requesting as to the further steps to be taken in the matter. After the snatching of the nomination paper the 2nd respondent stopped the proceedings. The 2nd respondent published Ext. P3 in the notice board to the effect that the further proceedings of the conduct of the election to the Board of Directors are stopped until further orders. The petitioner, therefore, filed this original petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction, directing the respondents 2 to 3 to hold the election to the Board of Directors on a date prior to 30-6-1991.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent was not right in stopping proceedings and that he is bound to proceed with the election process from the stage at which it was interrupted. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader contended tin, in the given circumstances the only course open is to conduct a fresh election after taking all steps under Rule 35 of the Co-operative Societies Rules (for short'the rules').

3. The procedure regarding the conduct of election to the-committee of the Society is laid down in Rule 35 of the rules. In the context, the relevant sub-rules are Rule 35(3)(e)(v) and (p) which reads:

"35. Procedure regarding conduct of Election to the Committee of Societies:--(3)

(e)(i) On the day following the date fixed for the receipt of nomination papers, the Returning Officer shall take up the scrutiny of the nomination papers. Tie candidate or his proposer or his seconder may be present at the, time of 'he scrutiny of nomination papers;

(v) The Returning Officer shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by, riot or affray or by causes beyond his control

(p) If at any stage of the polling the proceedings are interrupted' or obstructed by any riot or affray or if at such elections it is not possible to take the poll for any sufficient cause, the Returning Officer shall have power to stop the polling, recording his reasons for such an action in the minute book of the society.

As per Rule 35(3) (e)(v) if the conditions mentioned in the said sub-clause exist the Returning Officer would been titled to adjourn the proceedings but when at the stage of polling, the proceedings are interrupted on account of any of the causes mentioned in Rule 35(3)(p), the Returning Officer after recording his reason can stop the polling. What happened in this case is an interruption in the election process before the polling date. Therefore, the Returning Officer could not have stopped the proceedings but could have adjourned the proceedings.

4. The learned Government Pleader relied on the decision in Mavelikara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Alleppey District Co-op. Bank (1974KLT7S3) in support of his contention that the whole electoral process has to begin afresh. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in Abubaker v. Kurthavaran and others (1983 KLT 995 DB) and George v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others (1985 KLN 537 DB =1985 KLT 836) contended that there is no need to start the electoral process afresh, instead the Returning Officer has to proceed with the process from the stage at which it has been stopped. In Abubaker's case (1983 KLT 995)