1. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.23484/2012 is an erstwhile member and the identical petitioner in the other two writ petitions is the erstwhile President of the Managing Committee of the respondent bank. The petitioners challenge the order of the Registrar E2/1775/2012/SCEC, dated 26.9.2012 which directed the Joint Registrar (General) Kozhikode to prepare the voters list after deleting the members who are from outside the area of operation of the Society and who had expired. This was a pre-cursor to the elections to be held in the Managing Committee which election was earlier scheduled and disrupted in the course of polling.

2. The brief facts leading to the present challenge are that the elections were notified as per Ext.P1 and Electoral Officer and Returning Officer were appointed by the Election Commission. The election notification itself was dated 24.7.2012 which is produced as Ext.P1 in WP(C)28484/2012. The draft voters list was published and after considering the objections the final voters list too came to be published on 14.8.2012. The respondent Bank through its Secretary had moved a writ petition for police protection for the conduct of elections and an interim order was granted as is evidenced by Ext.P2. The elections took place as scheduled on 9.9.2012 and though the polling commenced and continued for some time, admittedly, it was disrupted by certain miscreants, despite the police protection granted. The polling materials kept in Booth nos. 1,2,5,6,8 and 9 were destroyed. In this backdrop, Ext.P3 order was issued by the Returning Officer stopping the polling as provided under Rule 35A(6)(n)(x) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, on specific reasons stated therein.

3. Subsequently, an Administrator was appointed and then an Administrative Committee, which appointments are not the subject of challenge in the above writ petitions. The challenge is with respect to the order passed by the Election Commission directing the Joint Registrar to re-cast the voters list. That order is already stayed by a detailed interim order dated 11.10.2012 in W.P(C) No.23484/2012. Admittedly, appeals are filed against the interim order and are pending, though the order is not stayed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sreekumar and learned Counsel Sri. Kunhikrishnan appearing for the petitioners canvas the position that the polling has to be commenced from the stage at which it was stopped. The petitioners relied on three decisions of this Court reported in Abubaker v. Kunhavaran and others (1983 KLT 995), George v. Joint Registrar (1985 KLT 836), Haridas v. Aleppy Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.(1991(2) KLT 310) and Nalinam T. v. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (2011(2)KHC 527).

5. Sri. George Poonthottom appearing for the Administrative Committee draws a distinction insofar as the decision rendered under Section 35(p) of the Co-operative Societies Act and contends that the Election Commission under Rule 28B of the Act has all pervasive control over the election and the directions issued by the Election Commission to aid the democratic process of the elections cannot be lightly interfered with by this Court under Article 226. The learned counsel also places reliance on Rajendran v. State Co-operative Election Commission (2004(1)KLT 1026) to buttress the above position. The power of the Election Commission as conferred under sub-rule 9 of Rule 35A is put forth, placing further reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mohanachandran Nair v. State Co-operative Election Commission (2013 (3) KLT 506). The said judgment has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A 1286/2013 and 1260/2013. Since the Election Commission has all pervasive control over the elections he, necessarily, could exercise a control over the voters list going by the language of Section 28B as also control the preparation of electoral roll and the Commission is perfectly justified in issuing Ext.P6 order, is t