JUDGMENT

Yashoda Nandan, J. - These are six petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner in each one of them is either a member of the concerned Cane Co-operative Society or a candidate for election to its Committee of Management. Fresh elections for the constitution of the Managing Committee of the relevant Co-operative Society were scheduled to be held on various dates either towards the end of October, 1970 or in the beginning of November, 1970. In the meanwhile on the 14th October, 1970, the Registrar, Cane-co-operative Societies, Lucknow-hereinafter referred to as the Registrar-who is one of the respondents in all the writ petitions, issued a circular letter purporting to give guidance to the various Cane Co-operative Societies with regard to the scope and implication of Rule 409 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. The primary relief sought in all these petitions is for an appropriate writ or order quashing the circular letter. Since the only question we propose to decide in these petitions is with regard to the legality and correctness of the view taken by the Registrar regarding the scope of Rule 409 in the impugned letter, we propose to dispose off all these petitions by a common judgment.

2. On the coming into force of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, in order to facilitate the existing bye-laws of the various Cane Co-operative Societies being brought in accord with the new Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Registrar framed certain model bye-laws. Bye-law No. 158 of these model bye-laws runs as follows :

"izca/k desVh] fucU/kd dh iwoZ Lohd`fr ls] vius lnL;ksa ds fuokZpu ds fy;s mifof/k la[;k 47(1) esa fufnZ"V fuokZfpr lnL;ksa dh la[;k ds cjkcj fu;e la0 409 dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s bl izdkj {ks= (Constituency) fu/kkZfjr djsxh fd izR;sd fuokZpu {ks= dh xzkelgar {ks= (Compact area) esa gks rFkk muds izfrfuf/k;ksa dh la[;k esa vf/kd fHkUurk u gks rkfd fofHkUu {ks=ksa dk mi;qZDr izfrfu/kRo gks ldsA"

During the hearing of these petitions, it was stated on behalf of the petitioners that the concerned Co-operative Societies adopted this bye-law without any material alterations. This was not controverted on behalf of the respondents. It has not been asserted that the bye-laws framed by the concerned co-operative Societies were not approved by the Registrar. The petitions disclose that in accordance with Rule 409 and the bye-law quoted above the Co-operative Societies divided their membership into as many different groups on a territorial basis as there are members to be elected to their Managing Committees. It has not been disputed that these constituencies were carved out with the approval of the Registrar and one member of the Managing Committee has to be elected to represent each constituency. It appears that there was some controversy with regard to the question as to whether the delegates of all the constituencies taken together shall have a right to vote for election of the representative from each constituency or the delegates of the constituency concerned alone will have a right of franchise for electing the member of the Managing Committee from that constituency.

3. By means of the impugned circular letter the Registrar, purporting to interpret Rule 409, has taken the view that Rule 409 does not contemplate "separate electorates for directors representing constituencies of different areas or interests". In his view Rule 409 provides for division of the membership of the Co-operative Societies merely for reservation of seats of members to be elected to the Managing Committee. He has taken the view that the entire delegates of the Societies irrespective of the territorial division or constituency in which they reside shall have one vote for the purpose of election of each member of the Managing Committees. According to him Secs. 20 and 32 (1) (b) of the Act and Rule 105 of the Rules framed thereunder militate against the deleg