T. N. SINGH, K. K. VERMA, JJ. ( 1 ) SHRI Arun Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri R. D. Jain, Counsel for respondent No. 1. Heard counsel. We are taking up for disposal two matters, one is M. C. C. 314 of 1088, also listed today for order which had come before the learned Vacation judge and on 27-12-1988, interim stay was granted in that matter, similar to one granted in M. P. No. 1382 of 1988 which is being disposed of also analogously. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS, Virendra Singh (of M. C. C. No. 314 of 1988) and rajmal Oupta (of M. P. No. 1382 of 1988) admittedly, are unsuccessful candidates who have challenged the election of delegates to the District co-operative Land Development Bank, Shivpuri. We are satisfied that they have failed to make out any case for issuance of any writ to give them any relief in these matters. We, however, make it clear that it shall be open to them to raise disputes before the Registrar in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the M P. Co-operative Societies Act, for short, the "act". Indeed, in one case, the nomination paper had been rejected and he could not contest the election, while in the other case, the grievance is of a different nature. We have already made the legal position clear in om Prakash Sharma's case (M. P. No. 56 of 1989, decided on 17-1-1989)that all kinds of "disputes" pertaining to an "election" can be raised under the said provision. Our reasons to dismiss the two petitions are short and similar. Both petitioners have not been prejudiced in any manner in exercising either the right to contest the election or of exercising their franchise at the election. Both petitioners did file nomination papers and that could be done because they were enlightened of the election programme as per Annexure P-1 of both petitions. It is complained to us that others could not have exercised their right because they did not receive timely the election programme and in that regard, today in the course of hearing, affidavits of some persons are filed. It is complained to us that others could not have exercised their right because they did not receive timely the election programme and in that regard, today in the course of hearing, affidavits of some persons are filed. Indeed, if those persons who have filed affidavits today do have aay grievance as respects non-compliance of any statutory provision infringing their right to contest the election or to take part in the election, it shall be open to them also to raise disputes severally and separately and to have that decided in accordance with Section 64. We are not authorised to make factual enquiry as to the late receipt of notices by those persons. Indeed on that account, the election process as a whole, cannot be said to be vitiated. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, we consider it an appropriate occasion to make clear lor future guidance of the concerned authorities the interpretation of the relevant bye-law 24 (1-Ba) and 24 (1-Sa ). It is not disputed that the bye-laws are the model bye-laws, framed under the relevant Act No. 28 of 1966 and those have been adopted by the District Co-operative Land Development Bank shivpuri. According to bye-law No. 24 (1-Sa), 15 days' prior notices are to be sent by Post under Certificate of Posting by the Election Officer to each member and, in the alternative, service on the members may be effected personally. The question is, whether the prior notice of 15 days has to be given 15 days before the actual date of polling or 15 days before the election process starts, namely, the date notified for receipt of nomination papers. Shri r. D. Jain, who appears for No. 1 in these two matters, has drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Election Commis tion of India v. Shivaji, [air 1986 SC 61] on the interpretation of the word "election". That was a case under Representation of the People Act and in the context of the provisions of Section 81 thereof, as also of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India It was held that term connotes the entire election process culminating in a candidate being elected. However, it was also abserved by their Lordships that the word "election " has a wide as also a narrow meaning. However, it was also abserved by their Lordships that the word "election " has a wide as also a narrow meaning. We have no doubt that the meaning to be attributed to the term "election" appearing in any statutory provision has to be construed in the context and setting of the provision also the object the provision is meant to subserve. It is well-settled in law, as is claimed that this norm of interpretation is relatable to the well-established maxim noscitur a sociis. In our opinion, the mention of the word "election" in bay-law No. 24 (1-Sa) is made with the object of notifying persons entitled to contest the election as also to take part in the election in order to enable them to exercise both rights and the notice must, therefore be so served as to subserve effectively that purpose We have, therefore ,to read the word "election" in the context of Rule 24 (1-Sa) as embracing the wider meaing to mean that 15 days' prior notice has to be served when the first of the rights, namely, the right to contes the election, ensues. In other w ords, the members are to be informed by serving 15 days prior notice of the date when nomination papers are expected to be received. If he is given prior notice of the date when polling has to take place, then the member will lose his right to contest the election. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, the same view we do not propose to take in respect of the other provisioa, namely, bye - law No. 24 (1 - Ba ). There under, it is contem-plated that the election of delegates shall be completed 50 days prior to the election of the Board of Directors and the question to be decided is whether the election of the delegates, though required to be held at Development blooks, would mean that every step in the election process has to take place at the same place, namely, Development Blocks. The controversy that has surfaced in this petition is relatable to Annexure P-2 wherein an interpretation of the said provision is given by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The controversy that has surfaced in this petition is relatable to Annexure P-2 wherein an interpretation of the said provision is given by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Shri Arun Mishra has submitted that the interpretation of the relevant bye-law manifested in Annexure P-2 bo accepted and it be held that each step in the process of election with the acceptance of the nomination paper has to be taken by the Election Officer at the Development Block and in that regard, the election programme, Annexure P-1, be deemed violative of Registrar's interpretation, Annexure P-2. In Annexure P-l, for two stages of the election process, two places are fixed one, the Development Block where the actual polling has to take place ; and the other, the District headquarters where nomination papers are required to be received and scrutinised and the name of candidates whose nomination papers are accepted are to be, published. In the context of the object sought to be achieved by bye-law24 (1-Ba) we do not think if any useful purpose will be served by holding that each and every step in the process of election has to take place at the development Block. The two important steps are of receipt of nomination papers and of casting of votes, for exercising the two rights envisaged under the parent provision as earlier noted. The election programme has to be carefully devised to ensure only that the two rights aforesaid are not impaired in any manner. We do not think that scrutiny of nomination papers being not done at Development Block or scrutiny also not being done there, would in any manner impair the right of any member of contesting the election. That being so, the rights of all members to exercise franchise respectively in the election being protected under the programme envisaging polling at the development Block, it cannot be said that the programme notified as per Annexure P-l is violative of the provisions of the bye-law aforesaid. Those members who aspire to contest the election and stake their claim to be elected as representatives or delegates can do so when they are supplied with nomination papers and they would not, in any manner, be handicapped in attending the headquarters where the nomination papers are to be scrutinised and the fined list published. Those members who aspire to contest the election and stake their claim to be elected as representatives or delegates can do so when they are supplied with nomination papers and they would not, in any manner, be handicapped in attending the headquarters where the nomination papers are to be scrutinised and the fined list published. Indeed, it is necessary to further stress in this connection, the fact that if different steps are required to be taken at the different Development Blocks, that would result in the process of election being delayed which is not conducive to the proper functioning of the democratic process of election. We are also of the view that there is not much distance to be covered by any person to come from development Block to the District Headquarter as can be said to be a handicap in the exercising of the right to contest the election of that member. ( 5 ) FOR the several foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the petition as we are satisfied that the election programme drawn up as per annexure P-1 is not violative of the relevant bye-law. ( 6 ) THE petitions are rejected with the above observations. ( 7 ) A copy of this order be placed on records of eash case. ( 8 ) BEFORE parting with the records, we would like to mention that the election has already taken place and we do not think if it would be proper for us to reverse that process at this stage when the petitioners have an alternative remedy, as referred above. Petitions dismissed. .