JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Nirankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra assisted by Sri Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel representing U.P. State Cooperative Societies Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Election Commission), Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4-District Cooperative Federation Limited, Bulandshahar and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. By instituting these proceedings, the petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Chief Election Commissioner(Cooperative Societies), whereby the elections of District Cooperative Federation Limited, Bulandshahar(hereinafter referred to as the society), which were notified on 16.02.2018, were postponed.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, impeaching the impugned order, is that once the election process had commenced by way of issuing the notification dated 16.02.2018, the Election Commission or for that matter any other authority of the State Government does not have any jurisdiction to postpone the election process. It has also been argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the notification issued on 16.02.2018 by the Chief Election Commissioner himself, the entire time bound programme was notified wherein deadlines were given for various purposes including for the purpose of publication of provisional electoral college, filing objection to such provisional electoral college and publication of final electoral college. He has further stated that as per the said schedule, the date on which the final electoral college was to be published was 16.04.2018 whereas the impugned order has been passed a day thereafter, i.e., on 17.04.2018 and hence once the final electoral college was published in terms of the Election Notification on 16.02.2018 itself, the impugned order could not have been passed by the Chief Election Commissioner for the reason that the same amounts to interference in the election process which had already set in. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Chief Election Commissioner to have acted upon the complaint which was allegedly enquired into by the Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahar and was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar to the Chief Election Commissioner. Submission in this regard is that District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate(Finance and Revenue) or for that matter any other authority of the State Government did not have any locus to interfere in the election process once it had been notified and process of the election had been set in motion.

4. On the other hand, it has been argued by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for Election Commission and Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, learned State Counsel and Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4, in unison that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 29 (3) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965), the Election Commission has all the authority and jurisdiction to postpone the election process or to cancel the same for the reason that it is a duty cast upon the Election Commission to ensure that free and fair poll takes place for constituting Committee of Management of every cooperative society throughout the state of Uttar Pradesh.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and have also perused the records available before us. The issue/ question which falls for our consideration and decision is as to whether once election process commences and a notification for the said process is issued by the Chief Election Commissioner, whether any interference is legally permissible either by way of postponing the elections o