Deshpande, J.:— The petitioners are three of the members of the Board of Directors of the Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Gangapur, which is a Co-operative Society registered under section 2(27) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Act No. XXIV of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). It is running a sugar factory in Gangapur Taluka and includes some 224 villages for the Co-operative jurisdiction of the said society.

2. The said Karkhana is also a specified Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 73(G) read with section 144A (2)(o) of the said Act. It is undisputed in this case that the term of the former Board of Directors expired on 29th of October 1977 and in the year 1983, after the expiry of the said term, the elections for the new Board of Directors were to be held. The Collector of Aurangabad, following the provisions of rules contained in the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”), published the election programme on 12th of January 1983. He appointed 27th day of January 1983 as the date for acceptance of nominations. He also appointed other dates for scrutiny and publication of the results 4th day of February 1983 was the date fixed for publishing the final list of contesting candidates and voting was to be scheduled on 19th of February 1983 between 8 a.m and 5 p.m The Collector started the election machinery after taking steps in accordance with the relevant rules of the said Rules. It is undisputed that the said society's elections are governed by these Rules. After the announcement of the election programme, it appears, on 20th of January, 1983, a telegram, which is annexed to the petition as Exhibit ‘C’, was received by the Collector, Aurangabad, which is as follows:

“Gangapur Sakhar Karkhana

Election may be stayed.

(DALVI)

Dy. Secretary,

Co-operative.”

3. The petitioners, being aggrieved by this action of the Government, which stays the election of the said society, have approached this Court invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule was issued on the petition and the Government has also filed its affidavit in return.

4. Daring the time when the petition was posted for hearing, an application was also made on behalf of the Interveners to be impleaded to this petition, which was allowed by this Court and the Interveners also were represented by their own counsel. They have also filed an affidavit today. We have taken that affidavit on record.

5. The main contention of the petitioners is that once the election programme is declared and the election machinery is set in motion by the Collector by exercising his powers under the rules governing the elections, it is not open for the Government to stay the elections. It is contended by the petitioners that the action of the Government seems to be totally misconceived. It is alleged and suggested that it may be due to some political motive or some other considerations that the elections of the Karkhana are stayed. During the time of hearing, the petitioners did not press this point of political pressure or mala fides, but the petitioners confined their grievance to the main challenge, that there is no power in the Government to stay the elections under the provisions of the said Act. Government has filed a return and in the return, the Under Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Maharashtra State, has opposed the petition mainly on the ground that the Government had issued directions to the Collector to stay the election on the ground that the area of operation, is affected by severe drought conditions. On account of this drought conditions, it is contended in the affidavit of the Government, that it would be very difficult for the Government machinery to conduct the elections. It will lead to diverting the Government staff to work in priority for election ignoring the urgent and emergency work of giving relief to the persons in drought area. It was contended that the Government's policy is that in an area where more than two-third villages are affected by drought, the election should not take place and, therefore, the directions were issued to the Collector.

6. The telegram which was sent to the Collector was not accompanied by any material. However, along with the return, the respondent-Government has filed another telegram which shows that with reference to the telegram dated 18th instant, Government desires to postpone the elections in those areas where there is drought conditions which should be of least in one-third of the villages under the area of operation of the respective Co-operative sugar factory. The telegram further says that the area affected by drought will be such as has been decided by the Revenue Department. It further mentions that as you (that is, the addresses of the telegram) know the correct condition of drought affected area, you are directed to take decision in the matter based on the above policy and this should also apply to all other specified Co-operative Societies. This is also a telegram addressed to the Collectors of various districts including Aurangabad. This telegram was sent on 21st of September 1982. Again there is a letter, which is filed along with the affidavit of the Government, which states as follows:

“Government in Revenue and Forests Department has declared some villages affected by the scarcity in some of the Districts and the orders regarding remaining villages will be issued by that Department on receipt of the Reports regarding Kharif paisawari. It has already been directed under Government telegram referred to above that the elections of specified Co-operative Societies in those areas where there is drought conditions which should be at least in ⅓rd of the villages so declared by Government under the area of operation of the respective Co-operative Societies should be postponed. Government is now pleased to direct that elections of specified Co-operative Societies in such scarcity affected areas should be postponed till the next Kharif crop, i.e, for one year. Hence this will apply as on today only to Kharif areas and crops.

In these circumstances you are requested to take suitable action on receipt of final orders regarding scarcity conditions from Revenue and Forests Department in respect of all the villages so affected.”

7. This is a letter addressed to the Collectors and District Deputy Registrars of Co-operative Societies of various districts including Aurangabad. This letter and the former telegram, which I have referred to above, reflect the general policy of the Government in this behalf. The letter is signed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Agriculture and Co-operation Department. Then, there is a further letter dated 14th of January 1983, which is addressed to the Collector, Aurangabad, in connection with the Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, in relation to the publication of the election programme. The letter is originally in Marathi and the contents of the same are as under:

8. The translation of the same in English is as under:—

“Gangapur Taluka consists of Kharif and Rabbi both the villages. Therefore, after taking into consideration the condition of Rabbi crop, the programme of election should be published.”

9. On the basis of the above return and the material filed by the Government, it was contended that the election programme though it was announced by the Collector on 12th of January 1983, was not properly announced after taking into consideration the directions issued by the Government.

10. The learned Advocate for the petitioners, first of all, contended that in the absence of any power vested in the Government to issue any such direction, the elections of the Karkhana cannot be stayed at all. We may here dispose of the legal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. In our opinion, this petition can he disposed of only on the legal ground. However, we have permitted the parties to address us on the factual conditions, which are reflected in the affidavit of the Government and which were tried to be supported by the learned Advocate for the Interveners.

11. The learned Government Pleader repelled the contention raised by the petitioners saying that the Government has got powers to issue directions under section 79A of the said Act. Section 79A of the said Act is in the following terms:—

“(1) If the State Government, on receipt of a report from the Registrar or otherwise, is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purposes of securing proper implementation of co-operative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by Government, or to secure the proper management of the business of the society generally, or for preventing the affairs of the society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members, or of the depositors or the creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of societies generally or’ to any society or societies in particular, the State Government may issue directions to them from time to time, and all societies or the society concerned, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions.”

12. It can then be seen that section 79A of the said Act deals with the powers of the Government to give directions in public interest. This section only shows that these directions are issued to the Co-operative Societies for the purpose of securing proper implementation of the co-operative production and other development programmes. They are concerned with the business of the affairs of the society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members, or of the depositors or the creditors thereof. The Government is also empowered under this section to modify those directions. The learned Advocate for the Interveners as well as the learned Government Pleader relied on this section to show that the directions issued by the Government will cover even a permission in relation to the conduct of elections, which falls within the category of business of the society. We are afraid that this contention is without any substance. Section 79A of the said Act can never be intended to override the specific provisions made in the said Rules, that is, the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971, which alone govern the elections and the conduct of the elections and everything relating to elections. When any election is conducted in the Co-operative Societies and especially when it is a specified society, then the said Rules and section 144B of the said Act come into play. Chapter XI-A of the said Act is relevant in this behalf. It is headed as “ELECTIONS of COMMITTEES AND OFFICERS of CERTAIN SOCIETIES.” This Chapter alone is the sole repository of the powers governing the elections. Section 144-B, which governs the elections says:—

“Every election shall be held as far as possible sometime prior to the date on which the term of office of the retiring member or members is due to expire. If a vacancy occurs due to any other reason, it shall be filled as early as possible.”

13. The conduct of elections is governed by section 144-C and under section 144-X, power to frame rules has been provided. In view of these specific provisions contained in Chapter XI-A of the said Act and the rules contained in the said Rules, it is not possible to infer or to discover any other source of power to obstruct or interrupt any election process which is started by the competent authorities under the provisions of the said Act.

14. Section 79A itself does not speak of election at all. It speaks of business of a society and affairs of the society. If the contention of the learned Government Pleader is accepted, it would mean that the Government can always interfere with the conduct of elections by invoking powers under section 79A of the said Act. The sphere of power to give directions under section 79A is quite restricted and it cannot be extended to the field of elections at all. Therefore, the argument that the election also forms the business of society and if it affects the public interest, the power of giving directions is available to the Government to interfere with the election following the provisions of section 79A of the said Act is not sustainable and we reject the same.

15. The learned Government Pleader also relied upon section 154 of the said Act to show that the Government has revisionary powers, and, therefore, the action of the Government in issuing directions to stay the election is quite justified. We are afraid that on the plain reading of section 154 of the said Act, it is not possible to accept this contention. Section 154 of the said Act deals with the revisionary powers of the State Government in certain conditions. The words used in section 154 of the said Act are as follows:—

“(1) The State Government or the Registrar, suo motu or on an application, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceedings of any matter, other than those referred to in sub-section (9) of section 149, where any decision or order has been passed by any subordinate officer, and no appeal lies against such decision or order, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceedings…….”

16. We have quoted only the extract of the section, which is material for our purpose. The words used in this section are “inquiry or proceedings of any matter.” The words “inquiry or proceedings” do not cover the election at all. The election is neither a proceeding nor an enquiry, but it is only a process and it is impossible to conceive that any election process can be covered by the words “inquiry or proceeding”.

17. There is another obstruction to invoke the provisions of this section. If the provisions of this section are to be invoked, then the provision of this section itself requires the Government first to give to the person, who is being affected by any order that is being made by the Government under this section, an opportunity of being heard before passing any order. If the Government wanted to stay the election in this case and recourse is had to section 154 as contended by the learned Government Pleader, then it was compulsory on the Government, in view of the provisions of section 154, to give an opportunity to the persons affected and on hearing such persons only the order could have been passed. It is undisputed in this case that no such hearing is given to the petitioners or any other person and in the absence of fulfilment of this condition, which is required to be followed under this section, it is not possible to accept the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that section 154 of the said Act authorises the Government to pass the order and the impugned order of the Government can be justified in view of its revisional jurisdiction under section 154.

18. On general principle also, the powers which are given to the Government under section 154 of the said Act cannot be invoked for interference with the process in regard to the elections on the same ground on which we have earlier held that section 79A of the said Act also cannot be of any help to the Government, because the conduct of elections is governed by the special law, which is enacted under the said Rules, and the said Rules will always prevail over the other provisions of the said Act in regard to elections. Except these two sections, namely, sections 79A and 154 of the said Act, no reliance was placed on any other provisions on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, it is clear that there is no section appearing in the said Act, which authorises the Government to give directions as far as elections are concerned. The said Rules are a statute, which lays down the procedure and conditions for conducting the election, and it is the final answer. If the statute has not spoken of any authority in the Government, then the Government has no power to issue directions in regard to the subject-matter of such statute by an executive order such as sending a telegram and obstructing the elections or staying the elections. Therefore, the contention that the election is stayed by the use of provisions as given in section 154 and section 79-A of the said Act falls to the ground and must be rejected.

19. On the merits of the claim, a very sentimental appeal was made by the learned Advocate for the Interveners that the drought conditions are prevailing in the villages and villagers are abandoning the villages in search of livelihood and the voters will not be in a position to participate in the election. The learned Government Pleader also contended that since the Government has declared that one-third of the villages are affected by drought conditions, this is a condition which should be taken into consideration if the elections are to be conducted in this area. We are afraid that this contention is not borne out by any material evidence on record produced before this Court. The affidavit of the Government does not specify as to from what time and from what period the actual drought conditions have commenced and what is the exact and precise condition of several villages which are affected by drought in this area. On the contrary, the petitioners have filed an affidavit which shows that in this very district there were elections held in Siddeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Sillod, and elections were also held in Dnyaneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Dnyaneshwarnagar, which is in Newasa Taluka of Ahmednagar District. Reliance was placed on the elections held in Dnyaneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana to show that if there were one-third villages hit by the scarcity in one part of the District of Ahmednagar, then elections should not have been held in that area, but they are held in spite of the serious drought conditions, and on the basis of this, it was contended that there is no reasonable ground to hold that in other part, which is just adjoining the same district, elections could not have been held on the same ground. If the Government's policy is to postpone the elections on the ground of drought in the whole of the district, it was open for the Government to do so, as the Government itself has reflected in its letter that the Revenue and Forest Departments will declare the villages affected by drought on receipt of reports regarding Kharif paisawari. We have asked the learned Government Pleader to show us if there is any such declaration issued by the Government to show that the concerned villages fall in the category of area which can be declared as affected by drought conditions. The learned Government Pleader was fair enough to concede that except the letter mentioned above, there is no material available on record to show any such declaration.

20. The learned Advocate for the Interveners contended that declaration or no declaration the fact remains that villages are affected by shortage of rainfall and there is dearth of drinking water also and there is likelihood of people at large not able to participate in the elections in a comfortable way. We have asked the learned Advocate for the respondents to submit on this point. However, except the bare statement made at the Bar and the appeal made on the basis of their own arguments, there was no material placed before this Court to show that actually drought conditions are so serious as to prevent the people from taking part in the elections. There is no representation either sent to the Collector or the district authority or to the Government in any form and we are left with no material to give a finding that the conditions are such that it is not possible for the persons to participate in the elections.

21. The petitioners have specifically averred in the affidavit, which is filed today, that the elections in the nearby taluka of Newasa in Ahmednagar District have also taken place. In that area, more than 122 villages of Shevgaon Taluka were certainly affected by drought conditions. The petitioner has averred in the affidavit that if, in spite of such conditions in that taluka in Ahmednagar District, elections of Dnyaneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. have taken place, it does not appear to be probable that the Government really feels that there is such drought condition prevailing in that part of taluka and in that part of district where the petitioners desire to conduct elections.

22. Without going into the merits of this aspect, we are constrained to observe that in the absence of any material whatsoever on factual aspect, it is not possible to accept the contention that the conditions in the area of operation, which is in dispute in this case, are severely affected by drought conditions as contended by the Government in its affidavit.

23. The policy of the Government in this regard seems to be little bit ambiguous. The letter of the Government, which was sent to the Collectors, shows that their policy was to postpone the elections of the specified Co-operative Societies in those areas where there is drought conditions which should be at least one-third of the villages so declared by the Revenue Department to be such villages which are affected by the drought conditions. We find that there are 224 villages in the jurisdiction of this Karkhana. Out of these 224 villages, 202 are rabi and remaining 22 are kharif. It is said that if the one-third ratio is to be followed, at least 70 villages must be validly affected by the drought conditions. We have no material to show in what manner, Government can think of one-third of the area being affected by the drought conditions in order to implement its own policy which has been expressed in the said letter addressed to the Collectors. In the absence of any such declaration by the Government as to which are the villages to be taken as affected by the drought conditions, it is not possible to infer or give any weight to the ground which is raised in the affidavit of the Government that on account of serious drought conditions, elections cannot be held to this particular Karkhana.

24. The return of the Government refers to the words “public interest”. It is true that the public interest is always available for the Government and the Government as the sovereign body is entitled to take such steps in the public interest as it deems necessary. However, in this matter, as the rights of elections are governed by the election law, which is contained in Chapter XI-A of the said Act read with the said Rules, we see no reason to find that any other source of power including the consideration of public interest can be available to the Government to interfere with the due process of election to be conducted by the authorities under the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules.

25. If the statute has spoken in clear words for the conduct of elections, the words of the statute are final. Section 144-B in Chapter XI-A of the said Act provides for elections to be held. section 144-C provides as follows:—

“(1) Save as otherwise provided, every election shall be held on such date or dates as the Collector may fix, and shall be conducted under his control by such Returning Officer or other officers, as may be appointed by the Collector in this behalf.”

26. Then there are several provisions in the said Chapter XI-A of the said Act from section 144-D to section 144-V, which deal with several situations as cost of conducting elections, disqualifications for membership, accounts of elections, corrupt practices, certain penalties and many other things. The comprehensive directions in several sections from 144-C onwards indicate the legislative intent. After having provided for such detailed provisions in this Chapter, including the provision for election petitions also which is provided under section 144-V, it is not possible to contend that the Legislature was not aware of any further contingencies which would obstruct the election process.

27. These provisions of Chapter XI-A of the said Act are to be read with the said Rules. Both in the said Rules and the said Chapter we do not find any justification to infer that the election once started under Chapter XI-A of the said Act can be postponed. The provisions of the statutes will have to be obeyed. No exceptions can be found out unless permitted by the law. Act of election is the life-blood of every democratic institution, small or great. Courts will have to be vigilant to allow the functioning rather than introducing constraints, not permissible by the relevant law. In this case, Chapter XI-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Act No. XXIV of 1961) read with the said Rules, that is, the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971, is the self-contained code for elections of a specified society. We have to respect all that Legislature has done and may do in granting of powers and rights and immunities. The action of the Government in staying the election is ultra vires the statute and without jurisdiction. Where the statute does not prescribe conditions, limitations and qualifications, the executive branch of Government cannot import one to arrest the operation of the statute. So, the action of the Government is contrary to the statute and against the principles of democratic administration based on Government of laws.

28. In the result, the rule is made absolute and the order, Exhibit ‘C’ to the petition, is quashed. We direct the Collector of Aurangabad to take steps and to hold the elections as early as possible. The Collector will now proceed to hold elections from the stage where it was stayed. No order as to the costs.

Rule made absolute.