N. Kumar, J.

1. The Petitioners have preferred these writ petitions challenging Annexure-A, the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies - first Respondent herein, appointing the second Respondent for conducting the elections to the BEML Employees Co-operative Society and Annexure-J, the notice issued by the second Respondent notifying the elections on 14.10.2010 at 11.30 a.m and the calendar of events and Annexure-J1 - one such notice issued to J. Munnagappa, the third Respondent herein.

2. The Petitioners are directors of BEML Employees Co-operative Society, for short, hereinafter referred to as the Society, who is arrayed as 5th respondent, which is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. According to the Petitioners, respondents-3 and 4 were earlier directors/committee members of the Society who are disqualified on two grounds. The particulars of which are set out in paras 2 and 3 of the writ petitions.

3. The Petitioners were elected as President and Vice President of the committee after constitution of the committee, for a period of 2 years. Before the expiry of the said 2 years, the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the Society issued a notice on the directors/committee members other than respondents-3 and 4 to attend the meeting conveyed on 30.09.2010 for the purpose of electing the President and Vice President of the Society. The Secretary also gave a letter to the Station House Officer, Byappanahalli Police Station requesting for police bandobust. The management of BF-ML Factory also made a similar request. 30.09.2010 was the date fixed by the Allahabad High Court to pronounce the judgment relating to Ramajanma Bhoomi. The Police declined to give protection and requested them not to conduct elections on that date and they alone would be responsible if elections are conducted and any disturbance takes place. The management also called upon the Society not to conduct elections against the advise of the police. Accordingly, no elections were conducted on 30.09.2010. However, the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer fixed 14.10.2010 as the date of election. In the mean while, the first Respondent as passed an order as per Annexure-A referring to the aforesaid facts and appointing second Respondent as officer to conduct elections. After such appointment, the second Respondent has issued calendar of events and sent notice of election to the third Respondent who according to the Petitioners is disqualified as director. It is in these circumstances the Petitioners are before this Court.

4. The Respondents have entered caveat and have also filed counter placing before the Court their version.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. This is an election matter. It is settled law that when once calendar of events is issued, the Courts, as a matter of rule, should not interfere in the process of election. Both the Chief Executive Officer of the Society as well as the Officer appointed by the first Respondent now intend to hold elections on 14.10.2010. The election as such is not opposed. The dispute is, who should conduct the election and who should be permitted to participate in the said election. There is a dispute regarding disqualification of respondents-3 and 4. The contention of the Petitioners is, if disqualified persons are permitted to contest the elections, the elections would not be fair. The said disputed question cannot be gene into by this Court in this proceedings. The material on record also shows that the proceedings are initiated against Respondents-3 and 4 for their disqualification. The question whether they are disqualified or not, cannot be the subject matter of these writ petitions and it is to be decided in an appropriate forum.

7. The very fact that the Chief Executive Officer of the Society was unable to hold elections on 30.09.2010, even the calendar of events for the said election is not produced coupled with the fact that there is a dispute regarding disqualification of respondents-3 and 4 and Petitioners who have enjoyed the office of President and Vice President are before this Court, it would be appropriate that a neutral person like second Respondent conducts the election on 14.10.2010 as per the calendar of events which is issued. The said election to be conducted by the second Respondent would be strictly in accordance with law. The parties who want to contest the election and parties who want to vote in the election are entitled to exercise their rights in accordance with law. If any dispute arises in this regard, the law provides the remedy and at any rate, the present writ petitions are not the forum where these disputed questions can be gone into. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.