The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the passing of a resolution for holding an election is mandatory, the sixty-day period for passing the resolution is not, emphasizing the need for continuity in the administration by an elected body.

The facts in all these cases are similar. The point involved is the same. I shall therefore state the facts in O.P.No. 2535 of 1992 as typical of the batch.

2. The petitioner is the managing committee of the Mannarghat Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., a co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the act). the term of the committee as per the bye-laws is five years commencing from first April. The petitioner committee, in office, had a term upto and inclusive of March 31, 1994, when its five year term expires. However, by virtue of the Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinances of 1992 promulgated on February 7,1992 reducing the term of office of the managing committees of co-operative societies from .five years to three years, the petitioner's term of office got reduced upto and inclusive of March 31st, 1992. It had to lay down office on that day consequent on the amendment.

3.This was a contingency which had not been anticipated by the managing committee as its term would, but for the amendment, have extended upto March 31, 1994. On the Ordinance being promulgated and since the society will be left without an elected managing committee after March 31,1992, the petitioner committee passed a resolution on February 11,1992 resolving to convene a meeting of the general body on April 12,1992 to elect a new managing committee. Another resolution to request the Joint Registrar to extend the term of the managing committee in office till April 13,1992 in exercise of his powers under R.39 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the rules ), was also passed in as much as the term of the managing committee was expiring on march31,1992 for supervening reasons, and not by reason of any default on their part in holding the elections. The resolutions were duly communicated to the appropriate authorities with request for appointing a Returning Officer and for extending the term of the managing committee in office. The Assistant Registrar the 3rd respondent, to whom the application for appointing Returning Officer was made, however declined the request by his proceedings Ext. P5 dated February 21, 1992, on the ground that the resolution for holding the election had not been passed in advance of sixty days of the expiry of the term of the committee. He took the view that since the managing committee was to lay down office on March 31, 1992 under the amended dispensation, the resolution for holding an election passed on February 11,1992 within sixty days was not in compliance with R.35 of the Rules and therefore could not be acted upon as a valid resolution, warranting the appointment of a' Returning Officer.

4. Petitioner challenges Ext. P5. They point out that the managing committee was validly in office on February 11, 1992 when the resolution was passed. It was a valid resolution which the managing committee was entitled to take having regard to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is imperative that a co-operative society should be managed by a democratically elected body and there is nothing extraneous or illegal in the committee, in office passing resolution to hold an election. The period of sixty days mentioned in R.35(1) is not mandatory and any resolution passed for holding election even within that period is liable to be acted upon, though that may not enable the managing committee in office to continue beyond their term. When a resolution is otherwise valid, the Assistant Registrar is bound to act on that resolution and appoint a Returning Officer...

5. Sri. Cyriac Joseph, Additional Advocate General who appeared for the respondents, however contends that the provisions of R.35, including the period of sixty days, are mandatory and therefore any resolution to hold an election, passed within the period of sixty days is ineffective, null and void and not liable to be acted upon. He places reliance on the decision of Namboodiripad, J. in Thankappan v. Co

opera