OZA, ACTG. C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioners challenging the proceedings before respondent No. 1 and for quashing of the orders Annexures f and I passed by respondents 1 and 2. ( 2 ) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners and respondent No. 3 are members of respondent No. 4, a co-operative society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent No. 4 is also known as Large Size Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. , kaudiya. This society comes under classification of societies as a Resource society. This society, among other things, advances loans and also provides for fertilizers, seeds and other consumer goods to its members. The society is also a member of the District Co-oparativo Central Bank Ltd. , Jabalpur, and it is alleged that the society has 638 members spread over 24 adjacent villages. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the term of the Board of Directors of the society, respondent No. 4, expired on 30th September, 1982, but since the elections for incoming committee were not held prior to the expiration of the said term, the Board stood automatically dissolved and in consequence thereof the Directors of the Board vacated their seats and the management of the society, therefore, was assumed by the Registrar till the next elections were hold and the new Committee took over charge. It is alleged that in exercise of powers under Section 45 (8) of the Act, Shri L. D. Bairagi, Branch Manager, district Co-operative Central Bank Ltd , Jabalpur, was appointed as Officer-in-charge of the society, respondent No. 4 until the constitution of a ne. v Comnit-tee/ board of Directors. ( 4 ) IT is further alleged that in due course the Assistant Registrar appointed shri R. S. Tiwari, a Co-opsrative Inspector, as Returning Officer to comple te the elections of the members and office-bearors of the said society by order dated 30th September, 1983. ( 5 ) IT is alleged that the first stage of the elections was preparation of the voters' list as provided under Rule 23 of the rules framed under the Act and after preparation of the voters' list the Returning Officer published the election programme on 25th November, 1983. ( 5 ) IT is alleged that the first stage of the elections was preparation of the voters' list as provided under Rule 23 of the rules framed under the Act and after preparation of the voters' list the Returning Officer published the election programme on 25th November, 1983. The petitioners have filed a copy of the final voters' list as Annexure-A and a copy of the election programme as annexure-B. It is alleged that the election programme is issued by the Returning officer as required under Rule 41 (2) of the rules framed under the Act. It is further alleged that the rule enjoins on the Returning Officer to notify the date for election of Directors of the Board, election of the delegates and the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board and the Committee is constituted only when the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are declared elected. It is, further provided that if the election remain, incomplete for want of valid nomination or for any other reason whatsoever, the same is completed by co-opting a member as provided in Rule 43 (2-A) of the Rules. ( 6 ) IT is alleged by the petitioners that in pursuance of the election programme, the petitioners filed their nominations for the office of Directors of the Board and they were declared duly elected unopposed on 3rd December 1983 by the Returning Officer. Their names were also declared in the Annual general Meeting on 17th December 1983. It is alleged that out of the three delegates to be elected, only one delegate representing the society in the Committee of District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. was declared elected. The two offices of the representatives to represent the society in the meetings of the marketing Society, Katni, and the District Co-operative Union, Jabalpur, were not filled up for want of valid nominations. It is alleged that under the rules these vacancies have to be filled up by co-option in the meeting of the elected directors which is convened to elect the President and Vice-President of the society. According to the notified programme, these elections/co-options were to take place on 30th December 1983. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, on 20th December 1983, evea before the elections of the society were completed, respondent No. 3, a member of the society, filed an election dispute before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies, Jabalpur. According to the notified programme, these elections/co-options were to take place on 30th December 1983. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, on 20th December 1983, evea before the elections of the society were completed, respondent No. 3, a member of the society, filed an election dispute before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies, Jabalpur. Alongwith it he also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, staying the subsequent elections of the society. This dispute was filed in the office of the Deputy registrar. The office wrote a note on the order-sheet that since the society was in supersession, the dispute may be forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, revenue, Katni. With this office note, the case was put up before the Deputy registrar who initially declined to agree with the office note but after scrutinising the same wrote that the same may be done under the rules. This endorsement was made by the Deputy Registrar on 20th December 1983 itself and the dispute was thereafter put up before the Assistant Registrar who, by his order dated 21st December 1983, ordered that the dispute be transferred to the Sub-divisional Officer, Revenue, Katni, for disposal in accordance with the Circular of the State Government. According to the petitioners, therefore, the dispute alongwith the application for temporary injunction was placed before the Sub-divisional Officer on 28th December 1983 and the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order to summon both the parties for 6th January 1984. It appears that after the case had been adjourned, the counsel for respondent No. 4 agaia approached the Sub-Divisional Officer With a request to pass orders on the stay application and upon this the Sub-Divisional Officer after hearing the counsel passed an order on the same date, i. e. 28th December 1983 staying all the subsequent proceedings of the society with a further direction to send a copy of the stay order to the Returning Officer. This stay order was to be operative till 6th January 1984. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, on 6th January 1984 the petitioners appeared and also submitted an application for permission to engage a counsel and after noting their presence the case was adjourned to 7th January 1984 and on 7th January 1984 the Sub-Divisional Officer after hearing both the parties passed an order staying further election of the society till disposal of this dispute. The petitioners have filed a copy of this order of the Sub-Divisional officer dated 7th January 1984 (Annexure F ). The petitioners against this order preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar along with an application for stay and according to the petitioners on 23rd January 1984 the Joint Registrar rejected the stay application. According to the petitioners, the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer staying further proceedings and the entertainment of the dispute by the Sub-Divisional Officer are illegal. ( 9 ) THE main grounds urged in the petition are that under Section 64 (2) (V) proviso, a dispute could only be entertained after the declaration of the result as indicated in the election programme and it is, therefore, contended that as the election programme provided for elections of the Chairman and vice-Chairman to be held on 30th December 1983 and till those elections were held, a dispute under Section 64 could not be entertained. ( 10 ) THE next contention raised in the petition by the petitioners is that under Section 66 of the Act power has been conferred on the Registrar which also can be exercised by the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar to transfer a dispute presented before him to a nominee or a Board of Nominees to be appointed by the Registrar but it is contended that the Assistant Registrar passed on the dispute to the Sub-Divisional Officer without passing an appropriate order under Section 66 just on the basis of the State Government's order whereas it is contended that the State Government had no power to authorise the Sub-Divisional Officer to entertain a dispute under Section 64. It is contended that the order dated 21st December 1983 shows that the Assistant registrar transferred the dispute in obedience of the circular issued by the State government to the Sub-Divisional Officer but the circular of the State Government cannot be said to be an order passed by the Registrar under Section 66 nor is there any order passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 66 and thus there is no jurisdiction conferred on the Sub-Divisional Officer to entertain the dispute or to pass interlocutory orders, ft is, therefore, contended that all the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer deserve to be quashed on both the grounds. There are other grounds also raised but at the time of the hearing of the petition the above mentioned two grounds only were pressed and it was contended that on both these grounds the proceedings before the Sab-divisional Officer and the orders passed by him deserve to be quashed. ( 11 ) IN the returns filed by the respondents, most of the facts are not in dispute but an interesting dispute has been raised by contending that the election programme, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioners as Annexure-B and a photo copy of it has been filed by the respondents alongwith the return (Annexure R-l), was not published as required under Rule 41 (2) as it was contended that in fact the Returning Officer prepared the programme and handed a copy of it to the Samiti Sevak but it was not posted on the notice board of the society as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 41 and it is further contended that instead the Officer-in-charge received a pamphlet printed by the central Co-operative Bank containing election programme upto 17-12-1983 and, therefore, at best the only election programme which was notified was up to 17-12-1983 and, therefore, the dispute could be entertained after the election was completed upto 17-12-1983, i. e. the elections of the Board of Directors. ( 12 ) LEARNED Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that as the election programme was not notified, no dispute could be entertained as nothing had happened in accordance with properly notified election programme. In the alternative, it was contended that as the printed pamphlet was circulated by the Officer-in-charge which only contained the programme upto 17th December 1983, the dispute could be entertained after the election on 17-12-1983. In the alternative, it was contended that as the printed pamphlet was circulated by the Officer-in-charge which only contained the programme upto 17th December 1983, the dispute could be entertained after the election on 17-12-1983. ( 13 ) IT was also contended by the learned Government Advocate that the state Government in exercise of powers under Section 3 appointed various officers and issued a circular that as the officers of the department are connected with the elections, the disputes should be transferred to Sub-Divisional Officers and in accordance with this circular the Assistant Registrar who could exercise powers of the Registrar under Section 66 transferred it to the Sub-Divisional officer and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer was authorised lo entertain the dispute, and as he was authorised to entertain the dispute he could pass interlocutory orders and even if the interlocutory orders are held not to be proper, still in a petition under Article 226 they could not be interfered with. ( 14 ) IT will be pertinent to consider the dispute of fact raised in the return. Annexure R-1, which is copy of the election programme filed alongv ith the return which according to the learned Government Advocate is the photo copy of the election programme issued by the Returning Officer, bears an endorsement by the Returning Officer himself which says that "ek Prati Prapt Notice board me Lagai Gai" There is another endorsement by the Samiti Sevak which reads "sanstha Me Prakashit Kiya, Chunao Karyakaram Ki Ek Prati Prapt ki" An attempt was made by the learned Government Advocate to contend that so far as the Returning Officer is concerned, he must have pasted it on the notice board of the Returning Officer. However, this contention is not supported from the endorsement which, according to the learned Government advocate, is the endorsement of the Returning Officer which reads "ek prati Prapt Notice Board Me Lagai Gai" and thereafter there is a seal and signature. Before accepting the contention of the learned Government advocate, we will have to presume that if this endorsement is by the Returning officer, the Returning Officer did not know the rule and this contention, therefore, apparently cannot be accepted. Before accepting the contention of the learned Government advocate, we will have to presume that if this endorsement is by the Returning officer, the Returning Officer did not know the rule and this contention, therefore, apparently cannot be accepted. Rule 41 (2) reads :" (2) Not less than ten days before the date fixed for the annual general meeting or the special general meeting, as the case may be of a society, the Returning Officer shall post a notice on the notice board of the society stating (a) the number of members to be elected ; (b) the last date of making nominations, which shall not be later than seven days before the date fixed for holding the said meeting, the hours between which, the place at which and the person to whom nomination papers shall be presented ; (c) the date on which, the place at which and hours between which scrutiny of nomination papers shall be made ; (d) the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures ; (c) the date for election of Chairman / President, Vice-Chairman / vice-President and such other officers as are specified in bye-laws. "this rule specifically provides that the Returning Officer shall paste a notice on the notice board of the society about the programme of elections and it is in this language of the rule that the endorsement of the Returning Officer which appears on Annexure R-1 has to bs read, which reads "ek Prati Prapt Notice board Me Lagai Gai". If the contention of the learned Government Advocate is accepted that the Returning Officer has put this endorsement, it will have to be understood that the Returning Officer when he put this endorsement complied with sub-rule (2) of Rule 41 and, therefore, the contention that a copy of this election programme was not pasted on the nolice board of the society cannot be accepted. It is unfortuna'e that the Returning Officer and the Officer-in-charge both submitted affidavits saying that a copy of this programme was not put on the notice board of the society. These affidavits directly run contrary to the endorsement that appears on Annexure R-l itself which has been filed by the respondents themselves which according to the learned Government Advocate is a photo copy of the original notice declaring the programme of elections. These affidavits directly run contrary to the endorsement that appears on Annexure R-l itself which has been filed by the respondents themselves which according to the learned Government Advocate is a photo copy of the original notice declaring the programme of elections. It is further significant that the Samiti Sevak has also put an endorsement by saying that "sanstha Me Prakashit Kiya, Chunao Karyakaram Ki Ek Prati prapt Ki" which also clearly shows that the election programme was notified as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 41. It is significant that an affidavit has not been filed of the Samiti Sevak saying that he had not pasted it on the notice board of the society. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the stand taken in the return that the notice (the programme of elections) was not notified on the notice board of the society is prima facie incorrect and is proved to be incorrect from the document filed by the respondents themselves i. e. Annexure r-l and, therefore, it cannot be accepted. It is unfortunate that these officers unnecessarily on affidavits took a stand which is disproved by their own document. It is, therefore, clear that this programme of elections Annexure R-1 was notified as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 41. ( 15 ) SECTION 64 (2), Proviso, reads :"provided that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of result. "it is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate that this proviso clearly enacts that a dispute cannot be entertained unless the elections are complete in accordance with the election programme and, therefore, it is clear that as the election programme provided for the election of President and Vice-President to be held on 30th December 1983, the dispute filed by respondent No. 3 oa 20th December 1983 could not be entertained in view of a clear provision provided in the proviso to Section 64 (2) ts quoted above. It is, therefore, clear that the dispute which was entertained by the Sub-Division il Officer was entertained when it was premature and could not have been entertained in view of the proviso to Section 64 (2) and on this ground, therefore, all the proceedings including the interlocutory orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer deserve to be quashed. It is, therefore, clear that the dispute which was entertained by the Sub-Division il Officer was entertained when it was premature and could not have been entertained in view of the proviso to Section 64 (2) and on this ground, therefore, all the proceedings including the interlocutory orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer deserve to be quashed. ( 16 ) AS regards the second question, it is clear that when the dispute was presented before the Deputy Registrar, a copy of the order-sheet filed by the petitioners which is not in dispute only shows the order passed by the Assistant registrar which reads "vivad Parkaran Vidhivat Prastut Hua. Panjiyan Kiya jave Evam M. P. Shasan Ke Paripatra Ke Anusar Nirakaran Hetu Anu. Vi. Adhi. Rajasva Katni Tah. Katni Ko Bheja Jave". It is not in dispute that this is the only order passed by the Assistant Registrar. The order of the State government to which reference has been made apparently is not an order passed under Section 66. Section 66 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act reads 3"66. (i) The Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of dispute under Section 64 decide the dispute himself or transfer it for disposal to a nominee or board of nominees to be appointed by the Registrar. "this clearly provides that the Registrar on receipt of a dispute under Section 64 either should dispose of the dispute himself or transfer it for disposal to a nominee or Board of Nominees to be appointed by the Registrar. Even if the contention of the learned Government Advocate is accepted that Assistant registrar could also discharge the functions of the Registrar in transferring the dispute to a nominee, still Section 66 contemplates a judicial order to be passed by the Assistant Registrar transferring it to a nominee nominated by him. The assistant Registrar in the order quoted above only acted as a post office and directed that because of the Government circular the dispute be sent to the Sub-divisional Officer. This order passed by the Assistant Registrar which has been quoted above could not be read as a judicial order under Section 66 and the learned Government Advocate also was not in a position to contend that this order could be read as a judicial order under Section 66 to be passed by the registrar or the Assistant Registrar. This order passed by the Assistant Registrar which has been quoted above could not be read as a judicial order under Section 66 and the learned Government Advocate also was not in a position to contend that this order could be read as a judicial order under Section 66 to be passed by the registrar or the Assistant Registrar. It is apparent that the circular of the State government was a rort of instructions but even if the authorities exercising jurisdiction under Section 66 wanted to act on those instructions, a judicial order had to be passed under Section 66 to transfer the dispute to the nominee or the Board of Nominees appointed by the Registrar. It is, therefore, clear that neither the Registrar nor the Assistant Registrar transferred this dispute to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Katni, as a nominee by passing an appropriate order under Section 66 and, therefore, on this ground also the Sub-divisional Officer could not exercise jurisdiction on this dispute and, therefore, also all proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the interlocutory orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katni, ate without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed. ( 17 ) NO other point was raised. In the light of the discussion above, therefore, on both the grounds the petition is allowed. The proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Katni, and all orders passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Revenue on the dispute filed by respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed. The proceedings also are quashed as the dispute could act be filed in the light of the proviso to Section 64 as it is still premature. It is further directed that as the elections of the Board of Directors were completed but the elections which were to be held on 30th December 1983 were yet to be held, further steps shall be taken to complete the elections from the stage from which they were held up because of this dispute and the interlocutory order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Under the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Security amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioners. .