Facts:

Both the petitioners are the members of the sixth respondent Society; the second petitioner has also had the distinction of being the former President of the parent Society--Tellichery Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank.

2. Initially, Iritty Taluk was created by carving out some territories from two other taluks; namely, Kannur and Thalassery. The creation of the new taluk has, therefore, necessitated the division of the two Co-operative Societies situated in those Taluks: the Kannur and the Tellichery Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Banks. In that process, the Government has appointed a Special Officer to oversee the operations of bifurcation of the existing societies and registration of the new society.

3. In the course of time, the Special Officer passed a resolution proposing to hold the election to the new society on 27.02.2016. Accordingly, acting on the resolution thus passed, the Election Commission issued Exhibit P1 notification to hold the election on the assigned date. Assailing Exhibit P1, the petitioners have filed W.P (C) No. 5062/2016.

4. The second petitioner, the former President, earlier filed W.P.(C)No.1162/2016 challenging the enhancement of the share value from Rs.100/- to Rs.500/-. As the Special Officer issued Exhibit P10 notice requiring the members of the new society to pay the enhanced share value, the petitioner has sought the interdiction of Exhibit P10 notice also. This Court on 12.01.2016 issued an interim order suspending Exhibit P10 demand notice.

5. The same second petitioner, much earlier, filed W.P.(C)No.29467/2015 assailing the agenda for the first General Body meeting, which contained an item as regards the enrolment of new members. This Court on 1st October, 2015 issued an order recording the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the Special Officer would not be admitting any new members.

6. Since the issues in all the writ petitions, involving substantially the same parties, are inextricably interconnected, this Court has proposed to dispose of them through a common judgment. Because W.P.(C)No. 5062/2016 contains a comprehensive challenge to the election process, this Court refers to the facts pleaded and the documents filed in the said writ petition for the narrative purpose.

Rival Submissions:

Petitioners':

7. Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the Society has to elect fifteen members to be on the managing committee; it has, nevertheless, divided the area only into seven wards, instead of fifteen. The primary contention on his part is that inadequate division of wards is impermissible.

8. Before the new society could come into existence, the members who were likely to be the members of the new society due to the territorial division had their initial general body meeting. In the said meeting, while drafting the bye-laws, they had the share value fixed at Rs.500/-.

9. According to the learned counsel, both the parent societies have Rs.100/- or below Rs.100/- as the share value. But the new society, which was yet to come into existence had abnormally raised the share value to Rs.500/-. It was without any basis. The learned counsel has also contended that this is in violation of Section 29(1E) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act ('the Act').

10. In elaboration, the learned counsel has contended that the Special Officer is appointed for the limited purpose of bifurcating the existing societies. He is required, according to the learned counsel, to hold elections involving those who became the members of the new society owing to the territorial division. Apart from discharging these two functions, the Special Officer has no other role to pay, emphasises the learned counsel.

11. The learned counsel has also brought to my notice the fact that despite the interim stay granted by this Court in W.P.(C)No.1162/2016, the Special Officer, while finalising the voters' list, has excluded the members who did