P. N. Nag ( 1 ) BY this petition petitioners seek for quashing of the order of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 14th May, 1922 whereby he has held that the appeal in the present form is maintainable. The petitioners have further challenged the order of confirmation of the interim stay passed on 24. 4. 92 and 1. 5. 92 whereby the implementation of Resolution No. 8 dated 30. 3. 1992 had been stayed by the Central Registrar. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-society has expelled as ma. nyas231 members by the resolution aforementioned as according to the Society their conduct was prejudicial to the interest of the Society and the expulsion has been recommended by the General Body of the Society which was attended by more than 6000 of the members. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners by the staying of the resolution by the Central Registrar the expelled members automatically stand qualified for the elections and ultimately for elections of the Board of Directors and thereby would cause disruption in normal functioning of the Society. Moreover, such election itself would become illegal and such an action of the Central Registrar will create lot of complications for the Society and as such an action deserves to be stayed in the interest of the Society. ( 4 ) MR. SHANTI Bhushan learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemeotly submitted that by staying the implementation of the resoltition aforesaid, the relief sought for in the appeal has been granted in advance and in case ultimately even if the Central Registrar dismisses the appeal the mischief which has been done by staying the. implementation of the resolution cannot be undone as the staying of the expelled members would enable such members to participate and contest in the elections and in case they are elected they can also hold offices. He has further submitted that such an order at this stage should not have been made and their appeal should have been heard first. He has further stressed that the appeal in fact is not maintainable in the present form and it should be thrown at the threshhold as no appeal can be filed in the representative capacity or jointly. He has further submitted that such an order at this stage should not have been made and their appeal should have been heard first. He has further stressed that the appeal in fact is not maintainable in the present form and it should be thrown at the threshhold as no appeal can be filed in the representative capacity or jointly. ( 5 ) WITHOUT prejudice to the rights and contention of Mr Shanti Bhushan at this stage it will be noted that the Central Registrar has only decided the preliminary objection about the ma intainability of the appeal and he has yet to decide the appeal on merits. This petition has been filed against the interlocutory order. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate that this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere at this interlocutory stage, nor do I find any jurisdictional error. The petitioners will be free to raise any contention before the Central Registrar at the appropriate time when the appeal is heard. Therefore, no interference is called for at this stage. However, it would be appreciated, if in the interest of justice the Central Registrar hears the appeal expeditiously. ( 6 ) MR. Shanti Bhushan next cotended that in case the petition is not entertained at this stage, the mischief done by the staying of the implementation of the resolution by the Central Registrar cannot be undone even if the appeal is dismissed ultimately, by the Central Registrar. On the other hand, Mr. Bhatia learned Counsel for the respondent has equally vehementally submitted that admittedly accordidng to the own showing of the petitioners in the application that the Returning Officer has been appointed and the election process has started. Once the election process has started the alternative remedy is provided for after the declaration of the result which they can avail of under Sec. 74 of the Multistate Co-operative Societies and of revision under Sec. 92. Once the election process has started the alternative remedy is provided for after the declaration of the result which they can avail of under Sec. 74 of the Multistate Co-operative Societies and of revision under Sec. 92. He has also relied upon a case S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and Others AIR 1988 S. C. 616 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down that it is not appropriate for the High Cout to interfere with an election process at an intermediate stage after the commencement of the election process and before the declaration of the result of the election held for the purpose of filling a vacancy in the office of the Chairman of a Panchayat Union under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1985 on the ground that there was an error in the matter of allotment of symbols to the candidates contesting at such election. The parties who are aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity of the election by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy. Similarly in another case Nanhoo Mal and Others v. Hira Mal and Others AIR, 1975 S. C. 2140 the Supreme Court held that the election to the office of the President of the Municipal Board could be challenged only according to the procedure prescribed by the U. P. Municipalities Act and that is by means of an election petition presented in accordance with the provision of the Act and in no other way. ( 7 ) IN view of the law laid down by the Suprme Court, in my opinion, in case ultimately the petitioners appeal is dismissed, they can have recourse before the Central Registrar under Sec. 7- of the Act and also a remedy of revision under Sec. 92 of the Societies and the mischief if any done by interim order passed by the Central Registrar also be undone by him. ( 8 ) MR. Shanti Bhushan learned Counsel has further contended that Central Registrar has no jurisdiction to stay the implementation of the revolution of the Cooperative Society and cannot confer rights of membership on the expelled members. In my opinion, it would not be advisable to express any opinion at this stage as it will affect the merits of the appeal. . Shanti Bhushan learned Counsel has further contended that Central Registrar has no jurisdiction to stay the implementation of the revolution of the Cooperative Society and cannot confer rights of membership on the expelled members. In my opinion, it would not be advisable to express any opinion at this stage as it will affect the merits of the appeal. . The petitioners would be at liberty to raise contentions before the Central Registrar at the time of the hearing of the appeal. In the light of above discussion, the petition is dismissed in limine. In the circumstances, order as to costs.