The court emphasized the directive nature of Rule 35(1) and upheld the validity of resolutions for holding elections within 60 days of the expiration of the term, ensuring expeditious election processes.

SreedhArAn, J.

This Original Petition has come before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge under Section 3 of the High Court Act. Petitioners are three in number. Petitioners 1 and 2 are members of Kurappumpady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No. E-257, the third respondent. The third petitioner was a member of (he elected Board of Directors of the third respondent bank. Election to the Board of Directors was held on 31-10-1992. As per the terms of the bye-laws its term was for three years. So, the term of the Board of Directors was to expire on 30-10-1995. Government issued Order dated 11-8-1995 under Section 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) whereby the term of the Board of Directors then in force was changed to three years and three months 6-11-1995 the term of the existing Board of Directors of the Co-operative societies was extended by a further, period of three months. Accordingly to the petitioners, eventhough the term of the existing Board of Directors of the third respondent bank was extended by six months, as per the notification mentioned earlier their term expired on 30-10-1995. As per Rule 35(1) of the Rules framed under Cooperative Societies Act the committee should have been met atleast sixty days prior to the expiry of their term and passed are solution to conduct the election. In the instant case the term of the Board of Directors expired on 30-10-1995 and the committee passed a resolution to hold the election at its meeting held on 14-10-1995. Since there was no clear 60 days from the date of passing of the resolution and the date of expiry of their term of office, the said resolution is invalid. Even as per the resolution dated 14-10-1995 General Body for electing the new Board of Directors was to be held on 31-12-1995. On receipt of that notification by the Assistant Registrar he did not appoint a returning officer. He wrote back to the society to re-fix the date of election between 15-1-1996 and 29-1-1996. Thereupon Board of Directors passed resolution dated 25-11-1995 requesting the Assistant Registrar to appoint a Returning Officer for holding election on 31-12-1995. Assistant Registrar appointed a Returning Officer pursuant to that resolution as evidenced by Ext. P9 order dated 29-11-1995 for holding the election on 31-12-1995. Returning Officer took steps to have the election to the Board of Directors held on 31-12-1995. While so the petitioners moved (he original petition on 4-12-1995 inter alia praying for quashing Ext. P9 order appointing a returning officer for election to be held on 31-12-1995 and to quash the entire proceedings to conduct the election to the Board of Directors on 31-12-1995.

2. Along with the Original Petition petitioners moved C.M.P.No. 34988 of 1995 praying for stay of all proceedings to conduct the election to the Board of Directors of the third respondent hank on 31-12-1995 on the basis of the decision taken by the third respondent bank on 14-10-1995 till the final disposal of the original petition. This court by order dated 19-12-1995 stayed the election until further orders. By the time the stay order was passed it is contended by the respondents that the returning officer appointed pursuant to Ext.P9 completed the entire process for holding the election on 31-12-1995 and the actual polling alone was to take place.

3. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the term of office of the Board of Directors expired on 30-10-1995 and that the Board did not pass a resolution sixty days prior to 30-10-1995 for holding election to the new Board of Directors. They passed the resolution only on 14-10-1995. That resolution is in violation of the terms contained in Rule 35 of the Rules in as much as there was no clear sixty days period from that day upto the date of expiry of their term, It is the further contention of the petitioners that any action taken by the previous Board of