By the Court.—Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh assisted by Sri Dhirendra Singh for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Bajpai for the State, Sri Devesh Pathak for respondents No. 4 and 5 and Sri Manish Kumar for the intervenor.

2. The elections to the District Co-operative Bank, Siddharthanagar, were notified initially by the Registrar on 1.6.09, fixing 5th and 6th October, 2009 for elections of Committee of Management of the District Co-operative Banks of the State, including the present Bank.

3. A Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45749 of 2009 was filed at Allahabad, wherein an interim order was passed on 2.9.09 saying that the members enrolled by the Administrator shall not be allowed to participate in the elections.

4. However, the dates aforesaid were postponed by the Registrar to 19.11.09 and 20.11.09. Before the elections could take place, the petitioner Bank filed a Writ Petition at Allahabad bearing number 61517 of 2009, wherein a Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad, considering the plea that the new members enrolled by the Administrator have got no right to participate in the elections, passed an interim order staying the elections of the District Co-operative Bank, Siddhartha Nagar scheduled to be held on 19th and 20th November, 2009 till further orders.

5. This interim order dated 17.11.09 was challenged in a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the Apex Court passed an interim order on 20.11.09 and thereafter on 27.11.09 while issuing notice and giving time for exchanging affidavits, directed that the elections may go on but the same shall be subject to outcome of the present proceedings (Special Leave Petition).

6. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, it appears that the Registrar issued the present notification on 30.11.09, by means of which, exercising his powers under Rule 432 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), he fixed the dates of elections as 15.12.09 and 16.12.09. Consequently, an election programme has been issued on 3.12.09, by means of which elections/date of polls have been notified for 15th and 16th December, 2009 i.e. 15th December for the elections of the members of the Committee of Management and 16th December for Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee of Management, for which necessary publication has also been made in the newspapers.

7. Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assailing the aforesaid notification and the order of the Registrar, fixing 15th and 16th December, 2009 as the dates for holding the elections of the members and the Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively, has mainly raised an objection, regarding the time period, which would elapse from the date of issuance of such election programme and the date of polls/elections.

8. Relying upon Rule 441 of the Rules, his submission is that the dates of such elections could not have been fixed without giving at least 15 days clear notice from the date of polls, which could go to maximum 30 days and since obviously neither from the date of order passed by the Registrar i.e. 30.11.09 nor from the date of publication of the election programme in the newspapers dated 3.12.09, 15 days time would lapse, the present elections cannot be held on the basis of such notification.

9. Another argument has been raised by him saying that this is not a case where the District Magistrate or the Election Officer has postponed the elections because of some disruption, as provided under Rule 432 and, therefore, this plea that the elections have to be resumed from the stage where they were disrupted and that since the elections were disrupted after the allotment of symbols, therefore, this notification does not require 15 days clear notice, would not be available to the State. In other words, argument is that if action is not taken under Rule 432, then there will be no occasion for taking advantage of the provisions of the said Rule, while fixing date for polling/