P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition filed by the petitioners under Articles 2, 6 and 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings under the m, P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus :the petitioner No. 2 Ramprasad is the President of petitioner No. 1 Rajasva karmachari Grab Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Ratlam. The respondent nos. 4 to 8 Raghunath Singh, Jagdish Prasad, Jagdish Chandra jivanlal and Ramchandra submitted an election dispute before the respondent no. 3 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Ratlam on 23-3-82 for declaring the elections to the Managing Committee held on 7-3-82 by which the petitioner No. 2 Ramprasad and respondent Nos. 8 to 15 were elected as Members of the Managing Committee and of the elections held on 17-3-82 by which the petitioner No. 2 was elected as the President, to be null and void on the ground of illegal rejection of their nomination papers and secondly on the ground that the Government Notification dated 20-2-82 has been issued by the State Government under Section 49 (7aa) of the act fop extension of the election time limit up to 31-8-82. The Assistant registrar by his order dated 23 3-82 granted ex pane stay in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 with a further direction that the results of the election of the President as also the Vice President be not declared. Subsequently after hearing both the parties the ex parts stay order granted earlier was vacated by the Assistant Registrar on 7-4-82. ( 3 ) AGAINST that order respondents Nos. 4 to 8 filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 2) \vho by his exparte order passed on 1-5-82 stayed the order of the Assistant Registrar passed on 7-4-82. On 25-5-82 the respondent No. 2 after hearing both the parties passed an order to the effect that the nomination papers he submitted before him about which respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had raised an objection that their nominations had been illegally rejected by the Election officer. Against this order the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on 8-3-83 both on merits and also on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. 4 to 8 had raised an objection that their nominations had been illegally rejected by the Election officer. Against this order the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on 8-3-83 both on merits and also on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that before the board of Revenue the appeal was argued only in regard to the maintainability of the appeal and was not argued nor heard on merits of the case for which he relied on the proceedings dated 7-3-83 of the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contended that the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 1) has committed an illegality in deciding the same on merits also without hearing the petitioners on that point. ( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for respondent Nos 4 to 8, the main contestants, contended that the appeal before the Board of Revenue was heard not only on the question of maintainability but also on merits as would be clear from the proceedings dated 7-3-83 in which it has been specifically mentioned 'case heard'. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners cannot be allowed to make this grieve that they were not beard on merits of the appeal. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and after going through the material placed on record before us we have reached the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition necessitating interference in the impugned order of the Board of Revenue in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 7-3-83 clearly mentions that the case was heard on merits. Shri G. L Gupta learned counsel for respondent nos; 4 to 8 further submitted that he himself was present and had argued the appeal before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the appeal was not heard on merits has no force. The petitioners have not placed any material on record to indicate that the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Shri G. L. Gupta on this point is wrong or incorrect. The petitioners have not placed any material on record to indicate that the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Shri G. L. Gupta on this point is wrong or incorrect. The learned coursel for these respondents further submitted that the petitioners have deliberately filed this petition by not placing the correct facts before the Court as their main object is anyhow to drag on the proceedings and delay the matters. He, therefore, submitted that these respondents should be awarded costs. This submission, no doubt, has some force. ( 7 ) THUS, as a result of the aforesaid discussion, considering the facts and circumstaaces of the case, we see no merit in this petition, which is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 200. We may, however, hopefully note that this being an election dispute the authorities concerned shall try to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Petition dismissed. .