The Registrar's obligation to appoint a Returning Officer for co-operative society elections is contingent on the committee passing a resolution 'at least 60 days' in advance of the expiration of its term, as per R.35 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules.

Petitioner No. 1, T.K. Sugathan is the President of the petitioner No.2, Pappinivattom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner No.2 resolved that the elections to the Managing Committee shall be held on 7-3-1993. A copy of the resolution was eventually sent to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the respondent herein, as envisaged by sub-rule (1) of R.35 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The term of the present managing committee expires on 13-6-1993. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative -Societies, by his letter No.0-46/93 dated 1-2-1993 informed the petitioners that it was not possible to appoint a returning officer to conduct the elections four months before the expiry of the term of existing managing committee. The reason pointed out in the letter was his experience that where elections are held much prior to the date of expiry of the term of the existing committees, the existing committees refuse to hand over the charge to the elected committees. The thrust of this letter is that it is not desirable to appoint Returning Officer and hold elections, far earlier, than the date of expiry of the term of existing committee.

2. In this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners impugn the legality of the above decision of the respondent not to appoint Returning Officer immediately.

3. The only submission made by learend counsel for the petitioners is that the committee of a co-operative society by its resolution fixed the date, time and place for the conduct of the election to the new committee. This was done "atleast 60 days" in advance of the date of expiration of the term of the existing committee as required under sub-rule (1) of R.35 of the Kerala Co-op. Societies Rules. According to the, petitioners the Registrar is in duty bound to appoint a Returning Officer immediately on receipt of such resolution. Since in this case the respondent has declined to do so, the impugned order violates sub-rule (2) of R.35 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules.

4. In Sudevan v. Joint Registrar (1992 (2) KLT 18) this Court examined the scope of sub-rule (2) of R.35 which enjoins the Registrar to appoint a Returning Officer for the conduct of election, "on the receipt of such resolution". In that case the resolution under sub-rule (1) of R.35 was passed on 24-4-1992. The term of the committee was to expire on 30-6-1992. The proposed date of the election was 27-6-1992. The following propositions emerge from the judgment:

a) The Registrar has no power to ascertain whether the resolution under sub-rule (1) of R.35 was properly adopted.

b) On receipt of such resolution the Registrar has "to straight-away" appoint a returning officer for conduct of the election. He has no discretion in the matter.

5. The petition proceeds on the assumption that by the impugned order respondent has declined to appoint a Returning Officer. The respondent has merely stated that since the term of the committee expires on 30-6-1993 appointment of Returning Officer could be made well in advance of the date of election but not four months in advance. In the counter affidavit the respondent has pointed out that the decision to hold elections was taken by the petitioners on 23-12-1992 and the elections were proposed to be held three months before the date of expiry of the term of the committee, He says "it is further submitted that the Returning Officer will be appointed to hold elections duly before the expiry of the term of the committee in power". Notwithstanding this categorical statement that the process of election will be set in motion and the elections completed before the expiry of the term of the committee, the petitioners pressed the petition.

6. The petitioners urge that in view of the judgment referred to above, upon the receipt of the resolution, the respondent must straight away appoint a Returning Officer.

There are two reasons why the decision in Sudevan v. Joint Registrar (1992 (2) KLT 18) does