DEEPAK VERMA, J. ( 1 ) WITH consent, arguments heard. Without going into merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of on preliminary objection raised by the respondents'. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner is challenging the Election of Delegates of respondent No. 2, Society, held on 263. 1997. The main thrust of the argument of learned Counsel for petitioner is that as many as 12 members were already dead before 263. 1997, yet their names had appeared in the voter list. On this ground, submission is made that election be declared as null and void. Petitioner has also given details of the persons, who had already expired prior to 26. 3. 1997, the date on which election was held. Show cause notice, against admission, was issued to the respondents. All the respondents have filed their reply in oppugnation. Apart from traversing the merits of the matter, in one voice, they all have submitted that in view of the provisions of section 64 (v) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (For short hereinafter referred to as Act), the petition deserves to be dismissed, as petitioner has an alternative, efficatious and statutory remedy available to him, by raising an appropriate election dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. I, therefore, propose to decide this issue only, as the same goes to the root of the matter. Petitioner has strenuously submitted that the wording of Section 64 (v) are not wide enough to cover such a dispute, especially in view of the definition of an "officer" as defined in Section 2-t (i ). His further contention is that this Election, pertains to an election of delegates of the Society and since 'delegate' has been separately defined in Section 2-g (i) of the Act, therefore, it should be deemed that delegate is different than an officer, as defined in the Act. For the said purposes, strong reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court, Indore Jilla Sahakari bhumi Vikas Bank Maryadit Indore v. The Deputy Registrar and others, 1971 JLJ650. According to Shri Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, such type of disputes would not be referable to the Registrar, under Section 64 of the Act and aforesaid judgment of Division Bench, applies with full force to the facts of the present case. According to Shri Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, such type of disputes would not be referable to the Registrar, under Section 64 of the Act and aforesaid judgment of Division Bench, applies with full force to the facts of the present case. ( 2 ) IN reply, Shri Piyush Mathur, learned G. A. has submitted that the said judgment can be of no help to the petitioner, as the said petition was preferred, against an interlocutory order, passed by Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Against such an order, the petitioner of the said petition had approached the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, Whereas the Election dispute was already pending before the Registrar. His further submission is that, the wordings of Section 64 (v) of the Act are wide enough, to cover, even dispute of the nature, which is sought to be raised by the petitioner, in this petition. ( 3 ) SHRI Nimgaonkar, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, has apart from making various other submissions, has also argued that Section 64 (v) of the Act will take care of the dispute, which is sought to be raised by the petitioner. He has categorically mentioned that, in view of this position of law, the petitioner has an alternative, efficatious and statutory remedy available, therefore, this Court should be hesitant in entertaining such a petition. Apart from this, further ground has been raised by these respondents that petitioner was fully aware of death of various members, even before 263. 1997, the date on which election was held, which is manifest from various death Certificates issued at the instance of the petitioner and received by him, prior to 263. 1997. But despite full and complete knowledge of the said fact; petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, did not bring it to the notice of Returning Officer. ( 4 ) SHRI Nimagaonkar has also brought to my notice, provisions of Rule 23 (3) (a) of M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (For brevity hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). His contention is that Rule 23 (a) and (c), were fully complied with and the petitioner was given sufficient and ample opportunity, to raise his objections against the Voter List, prepared by the Society. His contention is that Rule 23 (a) and (c), were fully complied with and the petitioner was given sufficient and ample opportunity, to raise his objections against the Voter List, prepared by the Society. Not having availed of the opportunity given to him, it is too late in the day, for the petitioner to raise this ground for the first item in this petition. He has also brought to my notice, Section 48 of the Act, which deals with management of the Society. ( 5 ) SHRI Bhargava, learned Sr. Coursel, appearing for respondent No. 6, the elected candidate, has also submitted apart from other objections, that the petitioner has an alternative, efficatious and statutory, remedy available to him as mandated under Section 64 (v) of the Act and, therefore, this petition should not be entertained. The relevant portion of Section 64 (v) of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow : 64. Disputes : (v) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society : provided that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the results. At this stage, it would be appropriate to examine the definition of officer as appearing in Section 2 (t-i) of the Act. (t-i) "officer" means a person elected or appointed by a society according to its Bye-laws to any office of such society and includes a Chairman, vice-Chairman, President; Vice-Fresident, Managing Director, Manager, secretary, Treasurer, Member of the Committee and any other person elected or appointed under this Act, the rules or the Bye-laws to give directions in regard to the business of such society. The wordings used in Section 64{v) "any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the Society" and the words used in Section 2 (t-i) dealing with the definition of officer, especially "and any person elected or appointed under this Act", are of very wide amplitude. The same shall take into care all types of disputes, arising out of an election. ( 6 ) PETITIONER has not raised any grievance that this petition does not arise, out of an Election Dispute. The same shall take into care all types of disputes, arising out of an election. ( 6 ) PETITIONER has not raised any grievance that this petition does not arise, out of an Election Dispute. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has a remedy available to him under the Act, which so far he has not resorted to. lalso draw support from a judgment of the Supreme Court State of U. P. v. Labh chand, AIR 1994 SC p. 754. Apex Court has held elegantly in para 9 as under :"when a Statutory Forum or Tribunal is specially created by a stature for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is a legal position which is too well-settled. "for this reason also, this petition cannot be entertained at this stage. ( 7 ) 1 have carefully examined the judgment of the Division Bench, as reported in 1971 JLJ 650 . In the considered opinion of this Court, the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner. As has been held above, the wordings of Section 64 sub-Clause (v) and definition of officer, arc wide enough to take care of even such type of dispute which is raised in this petition. There is yet another point on which the petition cannot be entertained. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner has not approached the Registrar so far, by raising an Election Dispute and there has not been any finding by the Registrar that such type of dispute, which is sought to be raised in this petition, cannot be entertained, in view of any bar either under Section 64 or any other provisions of law. For that reasons also, I am of the opinion that this petition is premature. ( 9 ) AS has been mentioned above, respondents have candidly admitted in their returns that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. This only goes to show, that they admit that it is only the Registrar, who would be competent to hear and dispose of such a dispute. ( 9 ) AS has been mentioned above, respondents have candidly admitted in their returns that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. This only goes to show, that they admit that it is only the Registrar, who would be competent to hear and dispose of such a dispute. During the course of arguments also, all Counsel appearing for respondents, have made a statement at bar, that the Registrar, Co-operative societies, only, would be empowred to take up and decide such a dispute, on merits and in accordance with law. Cons equently, the respondents shall not be permitted to raise an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Registrar, while entertaining such an Election petition, if the same is preferred by the petitioner. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, I find, there is no merit or substance in this petition. It is accordingly hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted 45 days time from today, to raise such an Election Dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. On such a dispute being raised, the Registrar, shall consider the same and dispose it of, on merits and in accordance with law, under the provisions of the Act, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the petition is disposed of, on preliminary objection, raised by respondents, nothing has been expressed on merits on demerits of the case. The petition stands finally disposed of but, with no order as to costs. C. C. to all within four days. Petition allowed. .