ORDER H.N. Seth, J. - Ram Sanehi has filed this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16-9-1971 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah, declaring his election to the post of Sanchalak of the Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti, Khera Dahaulpur as invalid. He also prays that some other consequential reliefs be also granted to him. 2. Sri Ram Sanehi was elected to be a Director and thereafter President of the Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Khera, in an election held on 8th of November, 1970. Sarvasri Sadho Singh and Shadi Lal filed an application Under Rule 225 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 questioning the validity of Ram Sanehi's election. It was alleged that on 24th of August 1969 Sri Ram Sanehi took a loan from the Society which he did not repay till 8-11-1970 when he was elected to be a Director. The learned District Magistrate, Etawah who decided the election petition as an Arbitrator, found that on 8-11-1970, the date on which the election took place, Petitioner Ram Sanehi was in default for over six months in respect of the dues of the society and was as such disqualified for being elected as a Director or President as provided in Rule 453(i)(k) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules. In the result he made an award setting aside Petitioner's election as Director and thereafter as President of the Samiti. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that in view of the circular dated May 3, 1968 issued by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, the Petitioner could not be considered to be a defaulter in respect of the loans taken by him, till June 20, 1970. If the Petitioner became a defaulter for the first time or June 30, 1970 he was not in default for a period of six months or over on 8th November, 1970 when the election took place. He was, accordingly not disqualified for being elected as Director or President of the Society. 4. A person becomes a defaulter the moment he does not repay the loan taken by him on its becoming due. He continues to be in default so long as he does not make the payment thereafter. When does a loan become due is a question, answer to which will depend upon the actual agreement entered into between the parties. 4. A person becomes a defaulter the moment he does not repay the loan taken by him on its becoming due. He continues to be in default so long as he does not make the payment thereafter. When does a loan become due is a question, answer to which will depend upon the actual agreement entered into between the parties. In this case the Petitioner has not cared to say anything about the agreement under which the loan was taken by him. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the arbitrator committed any mistake in believing the Secretary of the Society when he stated that the loan taken by the Petitioner became due on 1st October, 1969 and that Petitioner had been a defaulter for over six months when the election took place on 8-11-1968. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed strong reliance on Registrar's circular letter dated May 3, 1968, addressed to the Managing Directors of District/Central Co-operative Banks and to the Agents of U.P. I Co-operative Bank Gonda, Bareilly and Rampur branches, which reads thus: It has been brought to ray notice, that two different due dates of recovery for Kharif and Rabi Crops have not been found to be convenient from the administrative point of view particularly, on account of the abnormal conditions which have been prevalent in this State during the last few years. In view of this the last date of kharif recovery is extended from 30th April to 30th June. In this connection, however, care will have to be taken that total period of loans does not exceed 12 months from the date of the first drawal in which case the last date of Kharif recovery will be 31st March henceforth and the unrealised portion of such loans will be treated as overdue. It may, however, be ensured that recovery is not concentrated in the month of 30th June alone but is evenly spread over. As stated earlier, the date on which the loan becomes due for repayment, has to be fixed in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties. That date can be changed only if the parties to the agreement mutually agree to it. As stated earlier, the date on which the loan becomes due for repayment, has to be fixed in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties. That date can be changed only if the parties to the agreement mutually agree to it. The circular letter can neither be construed to be an agreement between the society and the Petitioner nor does it indicate that any such agreement between the parties for changing the date on which the loan taken by the Petitioner became payable, took place. It is true that at one place the letter uses the expression "different due dates of recovery for Kharif and Rabi crops have not been found to be convenient from the administrative point of view", which suggests that the due date for recovery of Kharif and Rabi crops was being extended. However, the letter goes on to say that it is the last date of Kharif recovery that was being extended from 30th April to 30th June. It further states that the addressees are to ensure that recovery is not concentrated in the month of June alone but is evenly spread over. It is, therefore, clear that even this circular contemplates that loans taken during Kharif can be recovered before 30th of June i.e. they become due and payable before that date. This circular, in my opinion, is merely an instruction issued by the Registrar to the Managing Directors of the Co-operative Banks, requiring them to effect recoveries in such a way that it does not cause hardship to the persons to whom the loans had been advanced. It merely states the last date by which the addressees should make the recovery. Last date of recovery stated in the circular cannot be equated with the date on which the loan becomes due and after which the person obtaining loan can be considered to be a defaulter. 6. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit sworn by Sri Sadho Singh, reference has been made to a circular issued by the Registrar Co-operative Societies paragraph 11 whereof runs thus: Crop loan system must be introduced in toto wherever it has not been done so far. Kharif loans advanced during May to August must be demanded on 1st October and recovered by April 30, the latest. Kharif loans advanced during May to August must be demanded on 1st October and recovered by April 30, the latest. Similarly Rabi loans may be advanced between September and January and must be demanded on 1st April and finally realised by 30th June. Kharif demand unrealised on 30th April must be treated as overdues and similar Rabi demand unrealised by 30th June must be treated as over due and consequences must follow. This circular letter clearly makes out that loan taken during the month of August can be demanded after 1st October. If the Kharif loan can be demanded after 1st October it obviously becomes due on that date and so long as it is not repaid the person concerned continues to be a defaulter after that date. Reliance on circular letter dated 3-8-1968 is, therefore, completely misplaced. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was unable to advance any other reason in support of his argument that the finding recorded by the District Magistrate that the loan became due on 1st October, 1969, is erroneous. I find no error in the order of the District Magistrate, holding that on 8th November, 1970, when the election took place, the Petitioner was a defaulter for a period of over six months. He was, therefore, clearly disqualified and his election has been rightly set aside. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then invited my attention to Rule 454 of the Go-operative Societies Rules and contended that it was primarily for the Committee of Management of the Co-operative Society to have found the Petitioner to be a defaulter and to pass a resolution to that effect. Since this had not been done, the Petitioner cannot be held to be a defaulter. I am unable to accept this argument. Even if the Committee of Management does not pass a resolution to that effect, it is perfectly open to the Arbitrator to deal with that question when the dispute is referred to him u/s 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 9. The last argument raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the District Magistrate who acted as an Arbitrator in this case was biased as he was acting under the influence of Respondent No. 5 who was one of the Ministers in the State or U.P.. Respondent No. 5 has filed a counter-affidavit denying that he exercised any influence on the District Magistrate. Respondent No. 5 has filed a counter-affidavit denying that he exercised any influence on the District Magistrate. I am not inclined to place any reliance on the allegation made against Respondent No. 5. 10. There is thus no force in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order dated 8th November, 1971 confirmed by this Court on 8th December, 1971 is vacated.