YASHODA NANDAN, J. ( 1 ) SPONDENT No. 1 ganna sahkari vikas samiti ltd. , daurala, district meerut (hereinafter referred to as the society) is a "primary society" as defined in Section 2 (q-1) of the u. P. Co-operative societies act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). According to clause 3 of it bye-laws, the area of operation of the society does not exnend beyond the revenue district of meerut. Clause 5 of the bye-laws of the society provides that its membership shall be open to ( 2 ) THE petitioners are individual members of the society. According to clause 34 of the bye-laws the general body of the society is constituted by,clause 47 of the bye-laws of the society provides that the managing committee of the society shall be elected by its general body is an annual general meeting in accordence with the bye-laws regarding elections. Clause 39 provides that individual member shall cast their votes only through delegates and shall not be entitled for voting individually. ( 3 ) IT is a society in respect of which a notification un-disputably has been issued by the state government as ccntemplated by the proviso to sec. 29 (3) of the act, vesting the superintendence direction, control and conduct of election of its members,chairman and vice-chairman of the committee of management in the registrar. The deputy cane commissioner, western region, meerut, who is also the registrar, cane co-operative societies, exercising the powers of the registrar, passed an order dated 9th August, 1978, under, sec. 29 of the act read with Rule 439 (2) of the Rules framed thereunder fixing 28th SEPTEMBER, 1978 for holding elections and directed the district magistrate, meerut, to appoint an election officer. The sub-divisional magistrate, sardhara was appointed by the district magistrate as the election officer for holding of the committee of managements. After the regisrar had finally determined and published the constituencies under Rule 440 (8) in the "dainik hamara yug", dated 1st SEPTEMBER, 1978, a local newspaper published from meerut, the petitioners field nomination papers for selection as members of the committee of management of the society from daurela. Sambholi sardhana, kaithvari; lavar and pusar constituencies. Their nomination papers were accepted as valid by the election officer after scruting and they became candidates for election as members of the managing committee of the society. Sambholi sardhana, kaithvari; lavar and pusar constituencies. Their nomination papers were accepted as valid by the election officer after scruting and they became candidates for election as members of the managing committee of the society. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 did not file any nomination paper as a candidate for election as member of the committee of the society. On the 16th OCTOBER, 1968, which wasa postponed date, the petitioners were declared as duly elected members of the committee of management. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 8 being aggrieved by the election of the petitioners raised a dispute challenging the legality of their elections by means of a reference under sec. 70 of the act read with Rule 229 (2) before the district magistrate, meerut. The district magistrate, meerut appointed Sri R. C. Pandey, sub-divisional magistrate, meerut,as arbitrator under Rule 229 (d) to decide the dispute raised by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 had challenged the election of the petitioners on the grounds that (1) the division of the constituencies has not been done in accordance with law and was bad ; secondly, the election was bad inasmuch as under Rule 441 (2) there had to be notice of not more than 30 days and not less than 15 days from the date of voting whereas in the present elections notice was given on 7th SEPTEMBER, 1978 but the election took place on the 16th OCTOBER, 1978 in contravention of Rule 441 (2) ; thirdly, he was illegally prevented from filling his. Nomination paper; and fourthly on 16th OCTOBER, 1978 the election had been held holding that delegates of ordinary members constituted the general body in contravention of Rule 84 a, according to which the general body of the society consists of individual members since the area ot operation of the society was confined to only one district. The sub-divisional magistrate, arbitrator by means of his order dated 31st march, 1979 rejected all the grounds raised by respondent No. 2 and hsld that the election of the petitioners was valid. Aggrieved by the order dated 31st march, 1979 passed by the sub-divisional magistrate as arbitrator, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the district magistrate, meerut (registrar) under Section 98 (1) and (2) read with Rules 249 and 257. Aggrieved by the order dated 31st march, 1979 passed by the sub-divisional magistrate as arbitrator, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the district magistrate, meerut (registrar) under Section 98 (1) and (2) read with Rules 249 and 257. The appeal was transferred and ultimately heard and decided by the additional district magistrate (d), meerut, who, by his order dated 16th June,1979, allowed it and declared the election of the committee of management held on 16th OCTOBER, 1978 including that of the petitioners illegal. The additional district magistrate while rejecting all the pleas raised by respondent No. 2 in support of the reference challenging the legality of the election of the committee of management accepted the contention that the general body of the society should have consisted of individual members and not of their delegates only. The view was taken that the election had been held in disregard of Rule 84-a (2) of the Rules and consequently was illegal. While others whose elections were set aside by the appellate order of the additional district magistrate submitted to it, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition aggrieved thereby. ( 5 ) THE petition has been contested by respondent No. 2 who has filed a counter-affidavit and in response thereto a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised a number of contentions challenging the legality of the order passed by the additional district magistrate in deciding the appeal. Inter alia, it was submitted by him that since it had been found as a fact by the arbitrator as well as the appellate authority that respondent No. 2 had never filed nomination paper for contesting the election we was not an aggrieved party within the meaning of Rule 444-c (2) of the Rules and, consequently, the reference under Section 70 of the act at his instance was not maintainable. He further contended that under the bys-laws of the society, the dalegates of the individual members constituted the general body of the society and consequently individual members had been wrongly held to be entitled to participate therein. The constitutionality of Rule 84-a (2) has been challenged on the ground that it is violative of article 14 of the constitution. He further contended that under the bys-laws of the society, the dalegates of the individual members constituted the general body of the society and consequently individual members had been wrongly held to be entitled to participate therein. The constitutionality of Rule 84-a (2) has been challenged on the ground that it is violative of article 14 of the constitution. ( 7 ) IF the petitioners challenge to the vires of Rule 84-a (2) of the Rules servives, the other points raised by him will, in our opinion, need no decision and the petition is liable to succeed. We shall consequently first of all proceed to consider the question as to whether Rule 84-a (2) of the Rules is ultra vires as offending article 14 of the constitution. ( 8 ) RULE 84-a which was introduced in the Rules by means of a notification dated 24th decembar, 1977 runs as follows : 84-a. The geueral body of such class of co-operative societies as may be noticed under sub- Section (3) Section 29 of the act, shall, in the following cases, be constituted. according to the assertions made by the petitioners themselves, the membership of the society is open to the individuals, co-operative societies, state and central governments, educational societies situatd within the limits of the society and who grow sugarcane crop and nominal members. It is thus admittedly a society to which Rule 84-a (2) (a) of th3 Rules applies. Therefore, not the delegates of individual members only but individuals members themselves are member of its general body, unless Rule 84-a (3) is held to bs ultra vires and were entitled to participate in the election of irs managing committee at the annual general meetings. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the undisputed assertion contained in paragraph 41 of the petition that the society has as its members about 19,000 individual members from about 125 constituencies and each constituency as determined under the Rules is spread over 14 villages. It was contended that the object of the Rules was to ensure participation in the election of the committee of management of the society of all its members either directly or indirectly through their delegates representing them. It was contended that the object of the Rules was to ensure participation in the election of the committee of management of the society of all its members either directly or indirectly through their delegates representing them. It was urged that while according to Rule 84-a (1) a society which had its member inpividuals and other persons referred to in clause (c) to (f) of sub- Section (1) of Section 17, if any, were entitled to have elections held through delegates of its members, there was no legal jurisdiction for providing a different constitution of the general body of such societies as had as its members individuals and at least one co-operative society and other persons referred to in clauses (c) to (f) sub- Section (1) of Section 17, if any. Such a classification, it was urged, was not rational and had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved which is the participation either directly or indirectly in the eiection by its members. This contention, in our opinion, is unsound and must be rejected. ( 9 ) CO-OPERATIVE societies and scch other persons as are mentioned in clause (c) to (f) of sub- Section (1) of Section 17 must of necessity be represented by the delegates. The constitution of general bodies of socjeties of the nature contemplated by Rule 84-a (1) (b) by individual members is consequently inconceivable. While Rule 84-a (1) (b) applies to such societies whose area of operation extends to more than one district. Societies to which Rule 84-a (2) (a) or (b) are attracted, through they also have individuals as their members, have their area of operation confined to one revenue district. In Rule 84-a (1) there is express mention that societies covered by that provision are those whose area of operation extends to more than one revenue district. Absence of these words in Rule 84-a (2) (a) and (b) leads, in our opinion, to the inevitable conclusion that these provisions apply only to societies whose area of operation is confined to one revenue district. The principle that geographical considerations can legitimately frcm a basis for a valid classification for the purposes of article 14 of the constitution has been recognised by the supreme court as far back as its decisions in State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, (1953 ). Scr 254. The principle that geographical considerations can legitimately frcm a basis for a valid classification for the purposes of article 14 of the constitution has been recognised by the supreme court as far back as its decisions in State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, (1953 ). Scr 254. In societies to which Rule 84-a (1) applies individual members may belong to districts situated far away from the place where the annual general meeting for holding the election is held. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that ours is a vast country of long distance and travelling is not only expensive but also arduous. Because of lack of facilities requiring individual members to travel long distances merely to participate in an election would render the right of franchise of vast members of individual members of such societies ilusory if they are not allowed to participate therein indirectly through their delegates. Such members would stand defranchised in substance. This to our mind provides ample justification for providing that societies of the character envisaged by Rule 84-a (1) (a) would have in their general bodies delegates of individual members as voters. On the other hand, in a society the area of operation which is confined to one revenue district accessibility to the place where the annual general meetting is convened would be evidently comparatively easiers. ( 10 ) ARTICLE 14 of the constitution does not act as a bar to reasonable classification but only prohibits arbitrary discrimination by the laws themselves or in their administration, as was observed by Das, J. In State of West Bengal v. Anwer Ali, (1952) SCR 284,this test for judging the validity of an enactment if challenged on the ground of being violative of article 14 has never been departed from by the supreme court, applying this criteria to Rule 34-a (2), the vires of which is under challenge, we find that societies whose area of operation extends bayond one revenue district are classed together while other whole area of operation is confined to one revenue district are classed together while others whole area of operation is confined to ore revenue district are grouped as another class this distinction is based on considerations of accessibility to the members to the place where the annual general meeting is to be held for electing the committee of management and the office-bearers of the society concerned. The differentia, in our opinion, is clearly founded on a rational basis which has a just relation to the object which the Rule seeks to secure, namely, exercise of their right of franchise by the maximum poscible number of members in the election of the committee of management and the office-bearers who are to manage the affairs of the society for a period of three co-operative years. There is, in our opinion no force in the contention that Rule 84-a (2) of the Rules of offends article 14 of the constitution. ( 11 ) THE bye-laws of a society as required by the act are subject to the provisions of the act and the Rules framed thereunder. Rule 84-a as substituted by notification no-3815/c-1-77-7 (5), 1977 dated 24th February, 1977, by statutory provisions prescribes general bodies of such classes of co-operative societies as might be notified under the proviso to sub- Section (3) of Section 29 of the act. In respect of the society with which we are concerned, it has already been noticed, a notification under the proviso to sub- Section (3) of Section 29 had been issued. On the coming into force of Rule 84-a consequently clauses 34 and 39 of the bye-iaws to the extent they are in conflict with Rule 84-a ceased to be operative. Under the circumstances, there is no escope from the conclusion that it were the individual members of the society and not their delegates as provided by clause 34 of its bye-laws who were entitled to vote at the election of the office-bearers. ( 12 ) IT was urged before us that under Rule 444-c- (2), a dispute relating to an election could be referred only by an aggrieved party within forty-five days from the date of the declaration of the result and since respondent No. 2 had according to the findings recorded by the authorities concerned, nevr filed his nomination or election to the committee of munagement, he could not be described as an "aggrived party" within the meaning of that Rule and consequently, had no right to question the election. It was also urged thet as far as petitioners nos, 1 to 5 were concerned they had either been declared elected unopposed because not valid nomination paper had bsen filed from their constinuencies to context to their elections or the nomination if any, filed had been rejected house respondent No. 2 in any event could not be an aggrieved party against their election. All these contentions, in ouropinion, are without any merit. To find out the scope of the expression "aggrieved party as used in Rule, 444-c- (2) of the Rules, we have to examine Section 70 of the act. Under Section 70 any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary Section taken against a paid servant arising among members, past members or between a member and the society or its committee of management etc. Is liable to be referred to arbitration. Respondent No. 2 admittedly was a member of the society at the relevant time, irrespective of the question as to whether he had filed a nomination paper for election as a member of the committee of management or not, he did have a right under Section 70 of the act to question the constitution of the committee by means of proceedings under that provision. He must consequently be held to be an "aggrieved party" within the meaning of Rule 444-c (2) of the Rules. ( 13 ) RELYING on certain decisions of the supreme court dealing with cases under the representation of the peoples act, it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of a finding that the result of the election had been meterially effected as was required by Rule 444-city was not open to the appellate authority constituted under the act and the Rules framed thereunder to interfere with the declaration of the result of the petitioners election as members of the committee of management of the society. In the view we have already expressed, the election in the instant case was held by an incompetent body which did not constitute the general body of the snciety according to astatutory Rule which has been found by us to be valid. In the view we have already expressed, the election in the instant case was held by an incompetent body which did not constitute the general body of the snciety according to astatutory Rule which has been found by us to be valid. An election than held, in our opinion, was no election in the eye of laws Rule 444-c envisages a challenge took election which in the prestnt case was never held by those entitled to participate therein, if respondent no, 2 had directly come to this court challenging the legollty of the election, Rule 444-c could not have acted as a bar to his contening relief from this court. In Chief Commissioner of Ajmey and Another v. Radhe Shyam Dani (Air 1967 SC 304) it was held that it is of the essence of this elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in ordar that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinize whether the persons enrrolled aselectorals possessed the requisite qualifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unless this is done, the entire obligation cost upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls, would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. " (emphasis supplied) ( 14 ) THIS is a case in which there was no election at all since the real electors were kept our from participating in the election and those who did participate were not entitled to participate as delegates. It was an election which the act and the Rules do not envisage. If respondent No. 2 would have come to this court directly invoking its pswer, we would hove had no difficulty in entertaining the petition and even allowing in irrespective of the fact that Rule 444-c does provide for an election being challenged by means of proceedings under that provisior. If respondent No. 2 would have come to this court directly invoking its pswer, we would hove had no difficulty in entertaining the petition and even allowing in irrespective of the fact that Rule 444-c does provide for an election being challenged by means of proceedings under that provisior. The instant case, in our judgment is dearly distinguishable from the facts of the decision that come up for dicision before the Supreme Court in Nanhoo Mal and others v. Hira Mal and others, ( Air 1975 SC 2140 ) which overruling, full bench decision of our court held that,that was a case where an election was in fact held by those entitled to participate therein, ( 15 ) FOR the reasons given above, we decline to interfere with the order impugned and dismiss this petition. Parties shall bear their own costs, interim order, if any, is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed. .