JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in holding elections to the Priyadarshini Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham, a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioners have approached this Court.

2. The petitioners herein, who are the office bearers of the society state that the present committee entered office following elections which were held on 181.2016 and its term is scheduled to expire on 17.1.2021. The committee in its meeting held on 16.11.2020, resolved to hold elections on 14.1.2021. In the very same meeting, they approved the preliminary voters list consisting of 25 members eligible to vote in the proposed election. The proforma was submitted before the 4th respondent and the requisite fees were also remitted. However, with the objective of appointing an Administrator, to manage the society, no action was taken by the respondent. According to the petitioners, the reason for non-conduct of election is an innocuous conflict between the provisions of the bye-laws of the Society with the provisions of the Act. As per the provisions of the bye-laws, the term of the committee is 5 years consisting of 12 months each from the date of assuming charge, whereas the provisions of the Act provides that the term of committee shall be five years from the date of election. According to the petitioners, Section 13A and the explanation to section 28A is clear when it states that the provisions of the Act would override the byelaws. It is further stated that by way of abundant caution, the Special General Body of the Society in its meeting held on 11.12.2020 has amended clause 5(1)(a)(2) of Ext.P1 bye-laws to make it in conformance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioners have also produced Ext.P7 communication addressed by the 2nd petitioner forwarding Ext.P6 decision to the 3rd respondent and also Ext.P8 challan as per which the requisite fees were deposited. In spite of taking all necessary measures, no steps are being taken by the respondents to hold the election. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners are before this Court seeking a declaration that the respondents are statutorily bound to conduct elections to the managing committee of the Society before the term of its present managing committee and also for directions to the respondents to take immediate measures to complete the election process.

3. Sri. Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have carried out all acts that are mandated under the Act and Rules and there is no justification on the part of the respondents in delaying the conduct of the election. According to the learned counsel, the intention of the respondents is to appoint an Administrator by backdoor methods.

4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that though directions were issued to the petitioners to make the bye-laws in consonance with the provisions of the Act, no steps were taken. If the amendment has been forwarded, the same shall be registered and steps shall be taken to hold the election, is the submission.

5. From the submissions advanced by the learned Government pleader, the delay in forwarding the resolution was due to the fact that the society failed to carry out the direction of the respondents to make the bye-laws in tune with the provisions of the Act. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, even if there are inconsistent provisions in the bye-laws, the provisions of the Act will prevail. It is thus apparent that the petitioners cannot be entirely faulted for the delay in holding the election.

6. It is borne out from the records that the term of the existing Committee is due to expire on 17.1.2021. I also take note of the fact that the respondents have no case that the functioning of the Society is riddled with issues as described in Section 33 (1) of the Act or that any adverse in