G. P. SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petition seek quashing of an order of the Returning Officer dated 4th december 1982 by which he set aside all steps taken in the process of election up to that date and adjourned the polling which was to take place on 5th December 1982. Notice for admission of this petition was issued. Returns have been filed. The petition is heard on merits. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is a Co-opertive Society bearing the name M. P. Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh Colliery Employees Co-operative credit Society Ltd. The society is governed by the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The managing committee of the Society , is to be elected in accordance with Rules 40 and 41 of the M. P. Co-operative societies Rules, 1962. All the steps relating to the elaction of the managing committee up to the stage of paolication of the list of contesting candidates and allotment of symbols were carried out by the Returning Officer who is respondent No. 2 in this petition. The annual general meeting of the Society in which the poll was to be taken was fixed for 5th December 1982. It appears that on 4th December 1982 the Assistant Registrar wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara, for police help for maintaining law and order during election. The Superintendent of Police directed the R. I. Police Lines to provide the necessary police force for the election. It is said that the police help was refused because of some strike at a different place. The Returning Officer then sought guidance from the Assistant Registrar who by his memo dated 4th December 1932 advised the Returning officer to adjourn the poll to be held on 5th December 1982, It was thereafter that the impugned order was passed by the Returning Officer. The impugned order, however, does not refer to any of the aforesaid communications. It refers to a representation made by four members of the nominated managing committee. The Returning Officer on their representation not only adjourned the poll which was to take-place on 5th December 1962 but also aside all steps taken in the process of election up to that date. ( 3 ) IT is quite obvious that the nominated managing committee is interested in getting the election postponed. The Returning Officer on their representation not only adjourned the poll which was to take-place on 5th December 1962 but also aside all steps taken in the process of election up to that date. ( 3 ) IT is quite obvious that the nominated managing committee is interested in getting the election postponed. The nominated managing committee would continue till such time the elections are held. Moreover, the nomination papers of the President and the Treasurer of the nominated managing committee were rejected by the Returning Officer. For this reason also they were interested in getting the poll adjourned, The Returning officer should not have readily accepted their representation. From the letter of the Returning Officer addressed to the Assistant Registrar on 4th december 1982 it appears that the Superintendent of Police directed him to obtain police help from the Town Inspector. At least this much help could have been available to the Returning Officer. Even assuming that the available police assistance was not sufficient, although that fact is not mentioned in the impugned order, there was absolutely no ground for cancelling all steps of election taken up to that date. If having regard to the situation of law and order it was necessary to take more police help, another date for holding the general meeting should have been fixed but it was not open to the Returning officer to cancel the steps such as rejection and acceptance of nomination papers, the list of duly nominated candidates, the allotment of symbols and the publication of list of contesting candidates. As these steps were validly taken should not have been cancelled. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent society who has obtained instructions from the nominated President contends that the petitioner can raise a dispute before the Registrar under Section 64. Section 64 (2) (v)gives jurisdiction to the Registrar to decide any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society. There is a proviso which says that the Registrar should not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the result. In the instant case there could be no declaration of the result because the elections were not held on 5th december 1982. There is a proviso which says that the Registrar should not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the result. In the instant case there could be no declaration of the result because the elections were not held on 5th december 1982. In a case where no officers have been declared elected, it does not appear that the Registrar can entertain the dispute under Section 64. Any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer means that the election has been completed and the result has been declared. This construction is supported by the proviso to which reference has already been made. In any case it is very doubtful that the Registrar will have jurisdiction to decide a dispute of the nature which has been raised in this petition before us. We are, therefore, unable to accept that Section 64 (2) (v) is such an alternative remedy which bars jurisdiction of this court in this case under article 226. The learned counsel for the respondent next contended that a fresh list of members of the society should be prepared as the co-operative year has expired. "co-operative year" is defined in Rule 2 (c) to mean the year ending on 30th day of June. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the new co-operative year has commenced to run. Moreover, when the poll was adjourned as it could not be held on 5th December 1982 because of non-availability of police help which was necessary having regard to the situation of the list of members on which the poll was to be held on 5th december 1982. We do not think that a fresh list is necessary for holding the poll. ( 5 ) THE petition is partly allowed. We quash the order Annexure-E in so far as it direct that all steps taken relating to the election are set aside. The result of the quashing of the order is that all the steps taken up to 4tb december 1982 towards the election survive and all that is necessary is to call a fresh general meeting for taking the poll. We direct the Returning officer to all a general meeting within a month for taking the poll and completing the election. There will be no order as to costs of this petition. Petition partly allowed. We direct the Returning officer to all a general meeting within a month for taking the poll and completing the election. There will be no order as to costs of this petition. Petition partly allowed. .