JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. All these writ petitions involve a common challenge to the State's action of appointing Administrator in their societies in place of duly elected Boards.

2. Facts are identical, for which all these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order, however, for the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5533/2020; Sultana Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. are being taken into consideration.

3. Election of the Executive Committee or the Board of Directors of the petitioner Society were held in July, 2015 and accordingly tenure of the members of the Executive Committee was upto 22nd July, 2020.

4. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner-Society invited Court's attention towards the communication dated 29.06.2020, sent by the petitioner-Society to the Sub-Registrar, a copy whereof was sent to the Election Officer and submitted that the petitioner-Society has duly intimated the fact that the term of the present Executive Committee is going to expire on 22.07.2020 and, thus, elections be held accordingly.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said communication was sent by the Society in terms of Section 32 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2001") and, then, it was incumbent upon the State Government/election officer to hold the elections in the spirit of the provisions of the Act of 2001.

6. It is the grievance of the petitioner-Society that on the one hand, the respondents have not held the elections and on the other they are going to appoint Administrator(s) of the petitioner-Society, in purported exercise of power under Section 30(1)(c) of the Act of 2001.

7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent-State can appoint the Administrator for a maximum period of six months. But, having failed to hold the elections in time, it can neither appoint Administrator on the expiry of the term of the office of the Executive Committee, nor can the State continue the Administrator for a period beyond six months.

8. It was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents have selectively chosen the societies for the purpose of holding elections, though elections were due in all the societies before this Court.

9. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General, at the outset submitted that the election of the societies could not be held in wake of spread of pandemic COVID-19. He assured that the State is in the process of holding the elections though in a phased manner.

10. While submitting that holding of elections may take some time, he maintained that since the term of the office of the Executive Committee in these cases have expired, present members of the Board cannot continue in the office any further and the State is well within its rights to appoint Administrator(s).

11. It may be noted that in case of Sultan Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti, which was filed apprehending appointment of Administrator, on 07.08.2020, an undertaking was given on behalf of the State that till the next date, no Administrator would be appointed. Said undertaking is still in vogue.

12. In some of the writ petitions an oral undertaking has been given on behalf of the State to not to appoint Administrator; in others, pursuant to interim orders, respondents have been restrained from appointing Administrator and where appointed, the same has been set at naught.

13. Having regard to the submissions made, this Court is of the view that the appointment of Administrator in exercise of power under Section 30(1)(c) of the Act of 2001, per se cannot be faulted with, if the term of office has expired.

14. It has already been stated by learned Additional Advocate General that State is in the process of holding elections. The State has also given undertaking in some cases that no Administrator shall be appointed. In other cases State has been restrained from appointing Administrators.

15.