DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

1. Seemingly in conflict are the legislative will and the executive will: which one should prevail? The legislative will. It needs no cogitation.

2. In its familiar fealty to the Rule of Law and its constitutional obligation to give effect to the legislative will the statutory scheme this Court has twice rendered judgments: directing the authorities to hold elections to a co-operative society within a strict time frame. Nevertheless, twice the directions were ignored.

3. The Court is, yet again, constrained to give directions--for the third time. It, however, has no illusion that it will not be ignored or flouted for the third time, too. The Court's anxiety and apprehension are well founded for the learned Government Pleader has represented that it is neither for the Court nor the Election Commission to fix the date of election--it is for the administrative committee. In support of his submissions, the learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court. It will be referred to in due course.

4. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner is a member and former President of the fourth respondent society. The term of the managing committee headed by him having come to an end on 25.04.2012, the society passed a resolution to hold elections. The said resolution resulted in Exhibit P1 notification issued by the Fisheries Department, the proposed date of the election being 19.04.2012.

5. In terms of Exhibit P1 notification, 29.03.2012 was the date for considering the objections concerning the preliminary voters' list. However, on that particular date, owing to what was said to be law and order problems that had arisen on account of the unruly behaviour of certain members of the society, the authorities abandoned the process of election. In fact, the authorities postponed the elections sine die.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner along with certain other members of the then managing committee, filed W.P. (C) No. 8324 of 2012 and invited Exhibit P2 judgment. Though this Court in Exhibit P2 judgment permitted the petitioners to represent before the Government to have its term extended, the Government was not inclined. Under those circumstances, the department issued Exhibit P3 election notification. It is pertinent to observe that in compliance with the direction of this Court in Exhibit P2 judgment, the authorities have proposed to resume the process of election from the stage it had been left of: the publication of draft voters' list.

7. A member of the society filed W.P. (C) No. 20005 of 2014 assailing Exhibit P3 notification, inter alia, on the premise that it was issued by the department rather than by the Election Commission. This Court rendered Exhibit P4 judgment providing elaborate directions to the authorities to conduct elections expeditiously.

8. In terms of Exhibit P4 judgment, the Election Commission issued a fresh notification on 20.12.2014 proposing to hold election on 31.01.2015. As can be seen from the record, once again, certain members of the Society, who ostensibly did not have their names reflected in the voters' list, took recourse to violent protests. As a result, the Returning Officer is said to have submitted a report to the Election Commission opining that it would not be feasible to conduct election peacefully unless the issue of permitting certain members to remit the deficit share value was resolved. Consequently, the Election Commission withdrew the election notification necessitating the appointment of an administrative committee. Indeed, an administrative committee was appointed.

9. Under these circumstances, aggrieved by what is said to be inordinate delay in having the elections conducted to the respondent society, the petitioner, its erstwhile President, approached this Court for the second time by filing the present writ petition.

10. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken