V. D. GAYANI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, members of Cooperative Society, respondent No. 2, pray for issuance of a writ, quashing the whole election process, as evidenced by Annexure 1. ( 2 ) BY order dated 4-10-91, a show cause notice, against admission of this petition was issued. Accordingly Shri Chafekar, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 2. The respondents have also filed their replies to the show cause notice and have prayed for vacating the interim order of stay as passed on 4-10-91. Shri Trivedi learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has raised following grounds : For want of intimation of special General meeting by Dak under certificate of posting, sub-rule (3)of Rule 34 was violated. Referring to Rule 41 (2) and the Rule 23 (4), sub-rule (3) (b) it was contended by Shri Trivedi, learned cousel for the petitioners, that the respondents, as is evident from the election programme, as circulated by Annexure 1, showing the date of filing of nomination on 10-9-91 between 12 to 5 in the afternoon and the date of Special General Meeting on 6-10-91. The respondents have contravened the above two rules by not keeping" the minimum time gap. ( 4 ) SHRI Chafekar. learned counsel appearing for the respondent Society urged that firstly there is no such contravention, as alleged by the petitioners, consequently no prejudice by any stretch of law can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. In face of the publications made in local press giving wide publicity to the election programme and the general meeting to be held on 6-10-91, as is evident from Annexures R1 to R4 and lastly if there be any dispute which, according to the learned counsel, there is none could well be challenged under Section 64 of the Go-operative Societies Act. He also urged that it is well settled that normally the High Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not interfere with the process of election More so, when an alternative and afficacious remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 64 of the Act. He also urged that it is well settled that normally the High Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not interfere with the process of election More so, when an alternative and afficacious remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 64 of the Act. ( 5 ) IT was pointed out that the respondent No. 1 in compliance of Rule 23 (3) (c) duly published a list of members of respondent No. 2 Bank, which includes name of petitioners on 26-8-91 by exhibiting it on the office of the respondent No. 2, Bank, on the notice board and on notice board of the office of Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Incharge District Indore and also on the notice board of the office of Block Development Officer, Indore and all branches of the Bank, inviting objections thereon from the members of the Bank. A copy of the order has been filed alongwith the return as annexure R/6. This publication of list of members was also notified in local daily newspapers (copies thereof is Annexure R7 and R8 to the return ). It would thus seen that petitioners bad full opportunity to participate in the elections of the respondent No. 2, Bank, which they did not choose to participate and did not avail of the opportunity. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY intimation of the special general meeting of the Bank to be held on 6-10-91 for holding the elections of the directors of the Board of directors and representatives for other societies was sent by the Bank to all the members of the Bank on 13-9-91, under certificate of posting, as required by sub-rule (3) of Rule 34 of the M. P. Cooperative Societies Rules 1962, apparently 14 days before the date of general meeting. As is evident from annexure-1, in which the election programme duly published by the returning Officer on 6-9-91 on the notice board of the Society was also printed in addition to a notice of general meeting only as an additional information by way of courtsy and not as compliance of any legal requirement. Rule 41 (2) of the Rules 1962 require the election programme published by the returning Officer on the notice board of the Bank, which was actually done by him on 6-9-91 in compliance of the said Rule 41 (2 ). Rule 41 (2) of the Rules 1962 require the election programme published by the returning Officer on the notice board of the Bank, which was actually done by him on 6-9-91 in compliance of the said Rule 41 (2 ). Not only this the election programme was also published in local daily news papers on 8-9-91, as per Annexures R1 to R4. The rule merely requires publication of the election programme on the notice board and does not r quire to be sent to the members of the society personally and the petitioners cannot make any capital out of the additional information given alongwith the intimation of special general meeting of the Bank sent vide Annexure 1 to the petitioners. ( 7 ) THE returning officer is not require to send election programme to every members of the society by post. Although, Rule 41 (2) requires to publish it on the notice board of the Society for the information of all members which has been complied with. ( 8 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions we see no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The stay order dated 4-10-91 shall not affect the proceedings of election already undertaken by the respondent No. 2. Petition dismissed. .