K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings in Dispute No. 83/79 on the file of the Assistant Registrar of co-operative Societies, Circle No 1, Bangalore, and also to quash the orders dated 6-4-1985 and 28-6-85 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 110 of 1985, produced as annexures F, G and H respectively. ( 2 ) THE petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 claim to be the members of the Committee of management of the first petitioner-society. There was a dispute raised by Sri Chellaiah and lakkappa for a declaration that the petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 are not the members of the Managing Committee of the first petitioner-society ; as such, they have no manner of right to call the General Body Meeting of the first petitioner-society. There was a contention raised by the petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies, who entertained the dispute that the dispute was not maintainable having regard to the fact that it was they who had been functioning as the members of the Managing Committee for the last several years. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies did not enquire into the dispute. He only heard on the question of maintainability of the dispute and came to the conclusion that the dispute was not maintainable. Accordingly he dismissed the dispute. ( 3 ) THERE was an appeal filed by Chickaputtaiah (respondent-2) and also by Sri Lakkappa claiming to be the Secretary of the first petitioner's society. The petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded in the appeal as respondents. The Tribunal, by the order dated 6-4-1985 produced as Annexure-G, came to the conclusion that the dispute was maintainable, ultimately, by the order dated 28-6-1985, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and has remitted the dispute to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the order. While remitting the matter, the Tribunal has also raised certain points to be determined by the Assistant registrar of Co-operative Societies. While remitting the matter, the Tribunal has also raised certain points to be determined by the Assistant registrar of Co-operative Societies. ( 4 ) NO doubt, the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 28-6-1985 passed in appeal No. 110/85 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, even though they have produced a copy of the said order as Annexure-H. Having regard to the fact that the order dated 28-61985 has been produced by the petitioners and it is the one which is passed in appeal itself, I have permitted the petitioners to seek relief with reference to that order also. ( 5 ) SRI Purushothama Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, has advanced the following contentions for consideration : (1) That the petitioners 2 to 7 find Respondents 3 to 5 were elected as long back as in the year 1977 and from that time, they have been functioning as the members of the committee of management of the first petitioner-society: as such, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies was right in holding that the dispute was not maintainable inasmuch as in substance and in effect, the dispute related to the validity of the Election of the petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 as the members of the committee of management, which could have been challenged within the specified period as provided by Section 70a of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'); (2) That the dispute is between the two groups claiming to be the members of the committee of management of the same society ; therefore, such a dispute is not maintainable under Section 70 of the Act. ( 6 ) ON the contrary, Sri Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 5 ; and Sri somayaji, Learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondents 6 and 7, submit that the assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has not decided the dispute on merits ; that he is not right in holding that the dispute raised by Respondent-2 and Sri Lakkappa is not maintainable ; that the petitioners 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 3 were never elected as the members of the Managing Committee of the first-petitioner-society. ( 7 ) ON going through the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and also the orders of the Tribunal, I am of the view that it is not possible to accept the contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioners. There is a dispute between the two groups who are the members of the first Petitioner-society. One group is claiming that it is the elected Committee of management and another group is claiming that it is not so and it is they who have been elected as the members of the Committee of Management. The very fact of election having taken place is itself in dispute between the members of the 1st Petitioner society. Thus, it is clear that it is not a depute challenging the validity of election of the members of the Managing Committee. It is a dispute between the two groups of the members of the same society, one group claiming to be the members of the Managing Committee as against another and vice versa. Thus, there is a dispute between the members of the Society as to the constitution and management of the society. Section 70 of the Act, clearly provides for such a dispute. Section 70 of the Act, among other things provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative society arises among members. . . . . such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. " (only the portion relevant to the case on hand, is reproduced ). That being so, the contention of Sri Purushothama Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that the dispute in question is not maintainable, cannot at all be accepted. Of course, it is one thing to say that the dispute is maintainable and it is quite another thing to say that no relief can be granted in the dispute Ultimately, no relief may be granted in the dispute, That is on the merits of the dispute. The fact that there is no merit in the dispute does not render the dispute not maintainable. The fact that there is no merit in the dispute does not render the dispute not maintainable. In the first case, there will be a threshold bar to enquire into the dispute; whereas in the second case the dispute will be enquired into and ultimately it may be found that no relief can be granted. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in holding that the dispute is maintainable. Consequently, the contention of Sri Purushothama Rao that the dispute between the two groups claiming to be the members of the Committee of Management is not maintainable, cannot at all be accepted. ( 8 ) THE question as to whether the Petitioners 2 to 7 and Respondents 3 to 5 were elected as the members of the Managing Committee during the year 1977 is a matter that has to be gone into by the Assistant Registrar while deciding the dispute. The Tribunal has raised certain points for determination by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Arbitrator, as the case may be. Those points have a bearing on the dispute raised by Respondent-2 and Sri Lakkappa. That being so, I do not see any justification to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal, dated 6-4-1985 an 28-6-1985. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is open to the Petitioners and the Respondents to pursue the contentions they have raised in the proceeding.