K. C. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions raise common questions, hence are being decided by a common judgment. (I) Writ "petition No. 24234 : Mastram v. Cane Commissioner of 1987 etc. , has been filed for Mandamus directing the Registrar, Co-operative can Development Unions, U. P. Lucknow to hold the elections of the Co-operative Cane Unions prior to the election of the Federation and for quashing the order dated 7-12-1987 passed by the Election Officer fixing the schedule under Rule 441 of the Rules. (II) Writ No. 24065 of 1987: has been filed by Kripal Singh, a member of the Co-operative Cane Development Union, Moradabad for the relief out of which relief (a) is the same as claimed in writ No. 24234 of 1987, whereas relief (b) is for quashing the order dated 10-12-1987 passed by the Registrar fixing 29-12-1987 for holding of the elections of the Committee of Management of the U. P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Federation ). (III)WRIT No. 2485 of 1988 had been filed by the members of the co-operative Cane. Union Federation, Amroha for a direction to the Cane Commissioner/registrar, Co-operative Cane Development union Federation, U. P. to hold the elections of the federation after the election of the Cane Unions. ( 2 ) THESE three writ petitions have been filed by the members of constituency no. 9, which had been demarcated under the Rules of Chapter VI of. the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioners alleged that as the elections of the Cane Unions which were a part of the Federation had not taken place, therefore, the Election Officer could not in exercise of the power conferred under Section 441 (2) of the Rules notify 29th December, 1987 for holding of the elections of the members of the Committee of management, Vice-Chairman and other office-bearers. It is not being disputed by the contesting respondents that the elections of all the cane unions had not been completed before 29th December, 1987. It, however, alleged that the Election Officer of the Federation issued the election schedule in accordance with Rule 441, and that out of 13 constituencies, which had been earmarked for the Federation, elections had taken place in 12 constituencies. Only constituency that was left out was constituency No. 9 comprising of Moradabad and Bijnor cane unions. It, however, alleged that the Election Officer of the Federation issued the election schedule in accordance with Rule 441, and that out of 13 constituencies, which had been earmarked for the Federation, elections had taken place in 12 constituencies. Only constituency that was left out was constituency No. 9 comprising of Moradabad and Bijnor cane unions. The respondents further have alleged that the elections of the members of the Committee of Manage-ment of 12 constituencies were held on 29-12-1987. On the same date, the results thereof were declared. In accordance with election schedule, the election of the Vice-Chairman of the Federation was held on 31st December, 1987 in which Anand Singh had been elected as Vice-chairman. ( 3 ) THROUGH this petition, the petitioners sought that the elections of the Committee of Management of the Federation be deferred till the delegates of constituency No. 9 to represent the Committee of Management had not been elected. It was for this purpose that stay application was filed by mastram in writ No. 24234 of 1987 and by Kripal Singh in writ No. 24065 of 1987. On thesis applications for stay, a Division Bench noticed the order of the Supreme Court passed in Special Leave Petition No. 5140 of 1987, dhir Singh v. State of U. P. , directing the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to take immediate steps to hold the impugned elections by 31st December, 1987. The division bench did not grant the stay order staying the elections of the Committee of Management of the Federation fixed for 29th December, 1987 and directed: "in view of what has been stated above, we direct that though the elections of the Federation may be held on the dates already fixed and the results thereof may be declared, effect thereto shall not be given till further orders of this Court. " ( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 23-12-1987, Mastram and Kripal singh went up to the Supreme Court. Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by mastram was numbered as 207 of 1988. This petition along with S. L. P. No. 5140 of 1987 and 5348 of 1988 came up for orders on 17-2-1988 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not told that the elections of the Committee of Management had already taken place on 29-12-1987. Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by mastram was numbered as 207 of 1988. This petition along with S. L. P. No. 5140 of 1987 and 5348 of 1988 came up for orders on 17-2-1988 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not told that the elections of the Committee of Management had already taken place on 29-12-1987. It ordered : "thereafter, the Cane Commissioner shall take immediate steps to hold the elections of the Managing Committee of the Federation and complete the same on the date specified i. e. June 15, 1988. " ( 5 ) AN application was, thereafter, filed by Ram Asre, Chatur Singh, mahipal Singh, Virendra Singh and Yugender Singh for impleadment in s. L. P. No. 207 of 1988. These five persons had been duly elected members of the Committee of Management of the Federation on 29-12-1987. It was stated by these persons that the elections of the majority of the Cane unions had already been held and members for the Committee of Management had been duly elected out of the majority of the delegates of general body. The elections could not be set aside by the Supreme Courts order dated 17-2-1988 which was being relied upon by Mastram and others without being heard and without any reason being assigned to it. Treating the order of the Supreme Court dated 17-2-1988 as one setting aside the elections of the members of the Committee of Management, the Cane commissioner/registrar issued a circular on 24-2-1988 for holding of the elections of the left over Cane Co-operative Societies and for re-election of the members of the Committee of Management. Without the fasts being brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that the petitioner Mastram had deliberately not impleaded the aforesaid five applicants as party respondents who had been duly elected members. The Supreme Court heard the applicants and, thereafter, passed the order dated 7-4-1988. By this order, the supreme Court disposed of the three appeals concerning the Cane Cooperative unions and the Co-operative Cane Federation. The Supreme Court directed:"the High Court is seized with the matter as to the validity or otherwise of the election of 12 out of 13 Members of the Managing committee or the Directors that is the Apex Federation on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court directed:"the High Court is seized with the matter as to the validity or otherwise of the election of 12 out of 13 Members of the Managing committee or the Directors that is the Apex Federation on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It would be open to the learned Judges to make appropriate directions as to whether the directors so elected are entitled to assume office or not. " ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners urged that the Supreme Court has already found that the elections held on 29-12-1987 were invalid. Consequently, this Court should hold the elections of the 12 members of the committee of Management as well as that of the Chairman held oa 31-12-1987 to be invalid. ( 7 ) WE are unable to find any substance in this submission. The supreme Court did not go into the validity of the elections of the 12 members of the Committee of Management as that was not the question before it. We have stated above that Mastram and Kripal Singh had filed special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court which were numbered as 207 of 1988 and 4948 of 1988 against the order of the High Court dated 23-12-1987 refusing to stay the elections of the Committee of Management. The controversy, therefore, in the Special Leave Petitions was only about the validity or otherwise of the order of the Supreme Court of the aforesaid date. It would be a wrong interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme court dated 7-4-1988 if asserted that after that order nothing remains to be decided by the High Court excepting allowing of the three writ petitions and holding that the elections of 12 members of the Committee of Management as well as that of the Vice-Chairman were invalid. No such conclusion can be arrived at from the judgment of the Supreme Court. The extracted portion of the Supreme Courts judgment had left the controversy to be decided by the High Court. It did not decide whether the elections were invalid for the reasons advanced before us. ( 8 ) THE election of any member of the Committee of Management of the Federation can be challenged by an application under Section 70 of the arbitration Act. Such petition is generally entertainable after the completion of the election proceedings. It did not decide whether the elections were invalid for the reasons advanced before us. ( 8 ) THE election of any member of the Committee of Management of the Federation can be challenged by an application under Section 70 of the arbitration Act. Such petition is generally entertainable after the completion of the election proceedings. In the present case also, the election of the committee of Management of 12 constituencies could be challenged by invoking Section 70. Out of 12 constituencies, election of constituency No 11 has been challenged by two election petitions filed by Jasvir Singh and bhupal Singh. No other election petition has been filed with regard to any constituency whatsoever. As elections have not been challenged, they have become final and those elected have acquired a right to function as the member of the Committee of Management. ( 9 ) RECENTLY, in S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natrajan, [air 1988 SC 6161 the Supreme Court held that the parties who were aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity by an election petition For the view taken, the Supreme Court relied on N. P. Ponnuwami v. Namakkal constituency, [ air 1952 SC 64 ] Dealing with the question whether the writ petition was a proper remedy which could be availed of by a person aggrieved by any irregularity in the conduct of the election before the result of the election is declared. Fazal Ali, J. on a consideration of the nature of the litigation in respect of the election observed :"having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. " ( 10 ) THIS decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Nanhoo Mal v. Hira Mal, [ air 1975 SC 2140 ]. The Supreme Court held that right to vote or Stand for election to the office of president is a creature of the statute, i. e. , the U. P. Municipalities Act and it must be subject to the limitations imposed by it. The Supreme Court held that right to vote or Stand for election to the office of president is a creature of the statute, i. e. , the U. P. Municipalities Act and it must be subject to the limitations imposed by it. A Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya pradesh expressed the same view in Malam Singh v. The Collector, Sehore, [air 1971 Madh Pra 195]. In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court was called upon to consider the controversial question whether the Highcourt should exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution in election matters arising under the M. P. Panchayat Act. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Full Bench. ( 11 ) FROM the above, it would appear that if the election of the members of the Committee of Management was to be challenged, the remedy provided is under Section 70 of the Arbitration Act. In fact, an application was filed before us by Shiv Nath Singh pointing out that Anand Singhs election had been challenged and the matter is pending under Section 70. That was the proper remedy. At this place, we wish to make it clear that ; anything said in this judgment upholding his election on 31st December,* 1987 will not have the effect on the proceedings under Section 70, inasmuch as the grounds argued in this case is different from what might have been taken under Section 70. ( 12 ) THE questions argued were : (i) that it was incumbent on the Election Officer to hold the election of the Unions prior to the conducting of the election of the federation; (ii) that l/3rd of the electoral college of the federation remains unrepresented. ( 13 ) THE grounds urged may be assumed to be correct, but that will not have any effect on the elections of the 12 members of the Committee of management coming from 12 different constituencies. The petitioners of the three cases are from constituency No. 9 and that the election of the committee of Management, in so far as that constituency is concerned, remains unfilled. The petitioners of the three cases are from constituency No. 9 and that the election of the committee of Management, in so far as that constituency is concerned, remains unfilled. The delegates of the constituency No. 9 had no right to participate at the election of the 12 members of the Committee of Management the election of the members of 12 Committees of Management took place on 29th December, 1987, for constituting the general body of the u. P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation in the majority of the Primary cane Unions, all over the State. ( 14 ) IN para 34 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that: "it is stated that with regard to none of the Primary Cane Unions falling in constituency No. 9 the elections have been completed till 29-12-87. " ( 15 ) RULE 444a of 1968 would show that there is a separate general body for electing each member of the Committee of Management from each of the respective constituency. It is wrong to assert that there is a single general body for the purpose of electing the members of the Committee of management of the Federation. That is clear from Rule 444a as well Rule 440 and bye-law No. 117. From the facts stated in the counter-affidavit which have not been denied, it is clear that the elections in all the 13 constituencies had not taken place due to the conduct of the interested persons and as the elections had already become overdue, the term of whole of the Committees of Management having expired in 1983, there was nothhing wrong in the holding of the elections of the constituencies of which the delegates of the Primary Cane Unions had been elected. ( 16 ) FURTHERMORE, it may be stated that this Court also had issued directions in writ No. 15543 of 1986, Mir Singh v. State of U. P. , and 14960 of 1984 Raghubar Singh v. State of U. P. , decided on 2-3-87 (reported in 1988 All LJ 529]. Having felt that the elections of the Co-operative cane Union Federation have become overdue and due to one reason or the other that was being unjustifiably postponed, the Court gave the direction stated above. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High court had given similar direction on 1-1-86. Having felt that the elections of the Co-operative cane Union Federation have become overdue and due to one reason or the other that was being unjustifiably postponed, the Court gave the direction stated above. A Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High court had given similar direction on 1-1-86. Having thus found that the elections-of the members of Committee of Management on the grounds set forth in the present writ petition could not be set aside, we hold that the members are entitled to assume their office. ( 17 ) IN Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, [ air 1975 SC 2299 ] the supreme Court held ; "the Court cannot go into the question as to whether the sittings of the Houses of Parliament were not constitutionally valid because some members of those Houses were prevented from attending and participating in the discussions in those Houses. " ( 18 ) IN paragraph 28 In re : Pesidential Election, 1974, [ air 1974 SC 1682 ] the Supreme Court held : "that the elected members of a dissolved Legislative Assembly of a state are no longer members of the electoral college consisting of the elected members of both the Houses of Parliament. . . . . . . are, therefore, not entitled to cast votes at the Presidential election. " ( 19 ) CONSTITUENCY No. 9, which had not elected its delegates is not in law permitted to argue that the electoral college entitled to participate at the election of the members of the Committee of Management of the federation was incomplete. Holding of election of the Committee could not be postponed having already reached at the point of saturation as a result of no elected delegate of constituency No. 9, it will not have any right to raise a grouse. ( 20 ) FOR what we have said above, we find no merit in these petitions and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed. .