1. Is it an inflexible rule that an election process halted has to be continued from that stage only notwithstanding the efflux of time ? The issue arises in the context of an election to the Managing Committee of a registered Co-operative Society.

2. The election to the Managing Committee of the Desamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.134 ['the Bank' for short] was originally slated on 31.8.2014 as per the notification issued. But the election was indefinitely postponed by order dated 28.8.2014 of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission ['the Commission' for short]. The reason stated for the postponement was that the Bank did not make available the Register in Form-6B containing the photograph of the identity card holders. The power of the Commission to postpone the election under Section 28B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ['the Act' for short] is beyond dispute. Such power of superintendence, direction and control is discernible from Rules 35A and 35B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ['the Rules' for short] as well. More than 6 months have elapsed since the postponement of election and there was time enough to prepare the Register in Form-6B and therefore the election process has to be completed sooner or later.

3. I heard Mr.P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners in W.P (C) No.23400/2014, Mr.C.A.Majeed, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner in W.P (C) No.23980/2014, Mr.D.Somasundaram, Special Government Pleader on behalf of the State and Mr.George Poonthottam, Advocate on behalf of the Bank.

4. One of the questions that arise for consideration is as to whether the election process has to be continued from the stage it was halted or a fresh notification be issued. It may at once be noticed that about 6 months have elapsed since the postponement of election and there has been a sea change in the Act and the Rules owing to amendments. Many a voter would like to put in his nomination as a candidate for election which opportunity cannot be deprived for the reason that he did not do so earlier. The possibility of a few voters being ineligible to vote or the existing candidates being incapacitated due to efflux of time cannot altogether be ruled out. What is the harm in directing a fresh notification for election to be issued giving opportunity to those who would like to contest in the present scenario ? I do feel that a fresh notification displaying the election calendar would subserve the ends of justice taking note of the expiry of 6 months after postponement. I am conscious of the fact that the election was directed to be continued from the stage it was stopped in Madhavan Namboodiri v. Kammaran [1992 (2) KLT 567 (DB)]. But the said decision was rendered in the context of Rule 35 of the Rules which has been omitted by SRO.733/2014 with effect from 26.11.2014. This is not a case of stoppage of election by the Returning Officer due to interruption but a conscious postponement by the Commission due to non-availability of vital records. I am not therefore dissuaded from directing the Commission to issue a notification afresh and commence the process for conducting the election to the Managing Committee of the Bank.

5. Yet another reason which persuades me to direct the Commission to issue a notification for election anew is the amendment to the Act and the Rules as regards the right of a member to vote. Sections 16A, 19A of the Act and Rule 18A of the Rules have been so introduced [See: Kalladikode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 438]. The necessity to adhere to the amended provisions has been highlighted therein following Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT SN.51 (DB)]. It is inter alia contended that Section 20 of the Act remains unamended and that the right of a member to have one vote remains unaffected even after the amendment aforesaid.

6. Section 20 of the Act is extracted hereunder for the sake of clarity:

“20