A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 26. 5. 1993, Annexure 'p-19' to the petition, passed by the Deputy Regis trar, Co-operative Societies, Dewas, whereby he has transferred that election dispute filed before him to the Court of the Collector, District Dewas for disposal in accordance with law. The grievance of Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is not a judicial or a quasi-judicial order. It is an order having been passed without application of mind. According to him, in view of an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Sunder Lal v. S. D. O. , Katni, 1984 ,mplj 555, the Deputy registrar should have given reasons, for transferring the matter to the collector and as the order impugned has been passed without assigning any reason, it is, therefore, illegal. ( 2 ) AFTER seeing the clear provisions contained in Section 66 (1) of the m. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, it is manifest that a power has been given to the Deputy Registrar in the event of a reference made under Section 64 of the Act either to decide the dispute himself or transfer it to the collector for disposal in accordance with law. As such, it cannot be held that the Deputy Registrar on presentation of a dispute before him is under an obligation to decide the matter himself and only in those cases where judicially he may find that it should be transferred to the Collector, then only he is empowered to transfer such a dispute. The position thus emerges is that the power of the Deputy Registrar in the matter of transferring the dispute to the Collector is unfettered. It is in the discretion of the deputy Registrar to decide the dispute himself or to transfer to the collector. ( 3 ) IN view of the aforesaid, we find no illegality in the order dated 26. 5. 1993 passed by the Deputy Registrar. ( 4 ) ANOTHER grievance has been made about the interim order passed by the Collector. In our opinion, raising both the issues in a same petition cannot be permitted when, the initial challenge of the petitioner is transfer of the case to the Collector, then the petitioner could raise an objection about any order of transferring authority. ( 4 ) ANOTHER grievance has been made about the interim order passed by the Collector. In our opinion, raising both the issues in a same petition cannot be permitted when, the initial challenge of the petitioner is transfer of the case to the Collector, then the petitioner could raise an objection about any order of transferring authority. However, he is free to move the collector himself or present a fresh petition in respect of any grievance against any order of the Collector, if he may be advised to do so. In view of the facts and circumstances, the authority of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to this case. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .