The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of R.26 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, the public policy grounds for its enactment, and the legal consequence of voiding an election conducted in contravention of R.26.

1. The petitioner is a member of the Pattuvam Service Co-operative Society Ltd. 3rd respondent herein. The Original Petition is filed to call for the records and issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent directing him to prepare a voters' list in accordance with R.26 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and conduct the election to the committee of management of the 3rd respondent Society and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue appropriate directions to the 2nd respondent to adjourn the election to the committee of management of the 3rd respondent-society after the voters list as contemplated under R.26 of the Co-operative Societies Rules are finalised and for the issue of other appropriate writs and reliefs. Though originally the petitioner impleaded three persons as respondents, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cannanore, The Returning Officer, Pattuvam Service Co-operative Society Ltd., and the Pattuvam Service Cooperative Society Ltd., subsequently in C. M. P. No. 10779/81 the petitioner has impleaded respondents 4 to 9 as additional respondents in the O. P. That was necessitated because the election to the new committee was held during the pendency of the O. P. and six persons were elected as members of the committee and three persons were appointed by the government as their nominees and the six persons newly elected were sought to be impleaded in the O. P. In C. M. P. No. 10779/81 this court heard all the parties and allowed the petition on 25-6-1981.

2. In this case, though the Returning Officer as well as the Pattuvam Service Co-operative Society Ltd.-respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded originally and notices served on them, the newly elected members were impleaded by order dated 25-6-1981 and were served with notices of this O.P. But, so far no counter affidavit has been filed by anyone of them. More than two years have passed since then. The time for filing the counter-affidavits expired long ago. For the purpose of adjudicating the questions in this case, I have to proceed on the basis, that the averments contained in the O.P. are correct and true. It is only on that basis, this . Original Petition was heard and is being disposed of now.

3. The petitioner has alleged in para 1 of the O.P. that the committee in office passed a resolution on 15-7-1980 fixing 21-9-1980 as the date to convene a general body meeting for the election of the new committee of the society. This was duly published in the notice board and also communicated to the Deputy Registrar -1st respondent. The 1st respondent appointed a Returning Officer to conduct the election and issued a notice on 28-8-1980 detailing the programme of election to be held on 21-9-1980. This is Ext. P1. The date of filing the nomination was fixed as 10-9-1980. Several members filed their nominations. It seems the Returning Officer proclaimed that the Ist respondent has appointed him as the administrator of the society and that the election was adjourned. It is the further case of the petitioner that the order was not served on the society nor on the Board of Directors! It is also the petitioner's case that the order stated that the election should be held as soon as possible. On 13-4-1981 a notice was received by the petitioner and others stating that the election of the new committee is being held on 26-4-1981 at 10 a.m. It was stated in the notice that, on 26-3-1981a draft voters list has been published and on the voters list objections were received and that the final voters list was published on 31-3-1981. The petitioner asserts that none of these things have transpired. The notice is Ext. P2. According to the petitioner, it was not published. So also the final voters list was not published as stated. The petitioner further asserts that he obtained the voters list immediately and noticed that the number of members have since swelled, from what it was on 15-7-1980, t