R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india the petitioner seeks to challenge the changed election programme issued by the newly appointed returning officer, revised election programme dated 23. 1. 1997, the second revision election programme, the rejection of the nomination form dated 25. 1. 1997 and also challenges the entire election process for election of Board of Directors. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner is a representative of co-operative marketing society limited, Nagod, The election of the directors of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Satna were due and for holding the elections a returning officer was appointed by the authorities. By order of the respondent No. 3 i. e. the Joint Registrar Co- operative Societies, Rewa Shri R. S. L. Shrivastava Dy. Collector Satna was appointed as the returning officer. By notice dated 9. 1. 1997 issued by the manager-cum-Secretary of the Bank annual general meeting was scheduled to be held on 28. 1. 1997. The Board of Directors were to be elected in the said general meeting. The election programme was published on 9. 1. 1997. The nomination papers were to be received between 11 a. m. to 4. 00 p. m. on 17. 1. 1997 and 18. 1. 1997. The nomination papers were to be scrutinised on 20. 1. 1997 and 21. 1. 1997 between 11. 00 a. m. to 4. 00 p. m. and for 21. 1. 1997 from 11. 00 a. m. till the subject was over. 22. 1. 1997 was the date fixed for withdrawal of the candidature. Final list of the candidates were to be published and symbol were to be allotted on 22. 1. 1997. The election was to take place on 28. 1. 1997. The results were to be declared on 28. 1. 1997 itself. Co-option against vacant seats and nomination against vacant seats were to be made on 29. 1. 1997 and 30. 1. 1997 respectively. The election of President, Vice-Presi- dent and representatives of other societies was to be held on 5. 2. 1997. ( 3 ) IN accordance with the election programme various candidates filed their nomination papers on 17. 1. 1997 and 18. 1. 1997. The petitioner filed two separate sets of nomination papers for his election for the post of director. On 21. 1. 2. 1997. ( 3 ) IN accordance with the election programme various candidates filed their nomination papers on 17. 1. 1997 and 18. 1. 1997. The petitioner filed two separate sets of nomination papers for his election for the post of director. On 21. 1. 1997 as per the election programme the scrutiny of the nomination papers were undertaken by the returning officer Shri R. S. L. Shrivastava. At the time of scrutiny of petitioner's nomination paper various objections were raised, the objections were heard and decided by the returning officer who found that one of the nomination paper seconded by Badri Prasad Tamrakar was not in accordance with law, he therefore, rejected the same. However, the other nomination papers seconded by Bhagwandas was found to be in order and was accepted. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 8 was very much interested in the result of the election, therefore, was trying his best to contaminate and pollute the atmosphere. At the time of scrutiny of nomination paper of Shri Kamlaker Prasad Chaturvedi, the respondent No. 1 pressurised the returning officer to reject the nomination paper of Shri Kamlakar Prasad chaturvedi. The respondent No. 8, according to the petitioner came in the office of the bank where the scrutiny was going on and attempted to over reach the office of the returning officer. People standing out side requested and then obstructed him forcibly. The respondent No. 4 while moving in the office where the scrutiny was going on, at that point of time the respondent No. 8 misbehaved with other persons, therefore, the first information report was lodged by Ravindra Sethi and others. The returning officer because of the surcharged atmosphere closed the scrutiny and, thereafter, the respondentno. 8 sent information and reports to Collector and R. S. L. Shrivastava that the illegal acts were committed by the petitioner and his associates. According to the petitioner respondent No. 8 immediately rushed to Bhopal where he exerted pressure upon the respondent No. 2 to undue the entire election programme and the steps already taken. On 23. 1. 1997 revised / amended election programme was published by the newly appointed returning officer shri Ajay Sharma. According to the revised election programme scrutiny of the remaining nomination papers was to be conducted on 24. 1. 1997. On 23. 1. 1997 revised / amended election programme was published by the newly appointed returning officer shri Ajay Sharma. According to the revised election programme scrutiny of the remaining nomination papers was to be conducted on 24. 1. 1997. According to the petitioner as form of Shri Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi alone was to be scrutinised, the election officer if was authorised under the law would at best could scrutinise the said nomination paper. According to the petitioner none has powers to issue amended / revised election programme. The petitioner alleges that the respondent No. 8 exerting his pressure caused a second revised election programme to be issued on 24. 1. 1997. According to the second revised programme, it was ordered that the nomination papers already scrutinised on 21. 1. 1997 would be re-examined and reviewed and scrutinised again, on 25. 1. 1997. According to second revised programme withdrawal of nomination papers, publication of the final list and allotment of the symbol was to be considered on 26. 1. 1997. 26. 1. 1997 being the Republic day and Sunday no official business could be conducted. The petitioner submits that the newly appointed returning officer had no authority or jurisdiction to revise the election programme nor could put under scrutiny all the documents/nomination papers which were already examined and scrutinised. The petitioner submits that all this was motivated and designed to lead to rejection of petitioner's accepted nomination paper so that the respondent No. 8 could influences the election and see that his group was successful in the election. On 25. 1. 1997 one person claiming and impersonating himself, to be Bhagwandas as alleged by the petitioner appeared before the newly appointed returning officer and filed his objections. Inspite of serious objections by the petitioner about the falsity of claim of said bhagwandas and allegation of conspiracy, the newly appointed returning officer rejected the nominations of the petitioner. The said order supplied to the petitioner on 25. 1. 1997. The petitioner submits that the manner in which the election process was polluted and contaminated at the behest of respondent No. 8 the elections were not valid but deserve, to be set aside. The petitioner says and submits that nomination papers of Ramkaran Bunkar which was accepted on 21. 1. 1997 was reviewed and rejected on 25. 1. 1997. The petitioner submits that on 28. 1. The petitioner says and submits that nomination papers of Ramkaran Bunkar which was accepted on 21. 1. 1997 was reviewed and rejected on 25. 1. 1997. The petitioner submits that on 28. 1. 1997 the election of board of directors were held in absolute illegal and arbitrary manner and II Directors were declared to have been elected to their office by the returning officer. Nine were declared elected while the other two were co-opted. The petitioner submits that the elections held under the supervision and control of substituted returning officer are contrary to the provisions of law and Rule 41 (2) (b) of the co-operative Societies Rules. The petitioner submits that the process of election was so mercilessly polluted that the outcome cannot be held to be in accordance with law. He prays that the elections be set aside. ( 4 ) THE respondent No. 8 has filed his counter-affidavit inter alia pleading that he did not try to influence anybody nor did he manage to get the returning officer changed nor he asked the newly appointed officer to reject the petitioner's nomination. He has denied all the material allegations. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the petition in view of the counter-affidavit fired by the respondent No. 8 and has retreated the material allegations. The respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed their return and inter alia pleaded that the election process was not influenced by the respondent No. 8. They have also submitted that as the election was already taken place and the petitioner having an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act cannot be permitted to raise question of disputed facts before this Court for adjudication. According to them as many as 27 nomination were papers on 17. 1. 1997 and 38 nomination papers received on 18. 1. 1997. According to the returning officer Shri R. S. L. Shrivastava was threatened by certain persons at 10. 15 a. m. and was manhandled, therefore, a first information report was lodged at P. S. City Kotwali, Satna. In support of this allegation these respondents have filed affidavit of Shri R. S. L. Shrivastava. It is to be seen from the records that the said affidavit is not attested and is infact in form of an affidavit. It does not bear any seal or signatures of the attesting authority. In support of this allegation these respondents have filed affidavit of Shri R. S. L. Shrivastava. It is to be seen from the records that the said affidavit is not attested and is infact in form of an affidavit. It does not bear any seal or signatures of the attesting authority. The respondent No. 1 to 5 further submit that said Shri shrivastava sent a report to the Collector on 22. 1. 1997 that at the time of the scrutiny supporters of the candidates were creating lot of disturbances, therefore, he could not scrutinise all the nomination papers. In the return it was also stated that though number of nominations papers were examined but the decision taken by him were under influence. According to the report of Shri Shrivastava he was threatened by number of persons, therefore, to save his life he had ran away from he back door and went to the Collector who in his turn advised him to lodge a police report. The returning officer made a report that it was not possible for him to work freely and fairly on 21. 1. 1997. On this, Collector Satna sent wireless message to the Chief secretary and the other authorities. The Collector apprised the Registrar co-operative Societies, Bhopal with all these facts. The district authorities requested the Government and Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to issue the direction to renotiry the modified election programme and to see and ensure that elections were fairly conducted. The District Magistrate has to issue a prohibitory order under Section 144, Cr PC on 22. 1. 1997. The registrar Co-operative Societies sent a letter to the Collector informing that the elections were renotified. It is submitted by them that as per the amended election programme the scrutiny of the remaining nomination papers was to take place on 24. 1. 1997. After receiving this message from the Registrar, the collector again informed the Registrar and also sent a copy of the report of the returning officer that the scrutiny of the nomination papers on 21. 1. 1997 was affected by group of persons and the returning officer had taken decisions under the threat and duress. The Collector, asked for appointment of another returning officer. On 22. 1. 1997 the Collector asked the Joint Registrar Rewa to appoint Ajay Sharma, Joint Collector as new returning officer. 1. 1997 was affected by group of persons and the returning officer had taken decisions under the threat and duress. The Collector, asked for appointment of another returning officer. On 22. 1. 1997 the Collector asked the Joint Registrar Rewa to appoint Ajay Sharma, Joint Collector as new returning officer. Joint Registrar, co-operative Societies appointed Shri Ajay Sharma as the new returning officer on 23. 1. 1997. The said Shri Sharma issued first modified election programme in respect of the scrutiny of the remaining nomination papers and fixed the date for the same. On 24. 1. 1997 the Collector Satna received a fax message from the Registrar Co-operative Societies that State has taken the decision on the basis of the report of the Collector and on the report of Shri shrivastava that nomination papers which were scrutinised on 21. 2. 1997 should be re- scrutinised. Pursuant to the decision of the State Government the Joint Registrar gave the direction to the newly appointed returning officer that the scrutiny of the nomination papers be undertaken again on 25. 1. 1997. Accordingly said Shri Sharma published another modified programme. According to the respondents in view of the facts mentioned by them in their return they were justified in changing the returning officer and asking him to issue the modified election programme. According to respondents 1 to 5 they wanted to secure fair and impartial election. ( 5 ) IN the return they have justified the rejection of the nomination papers filed by the petitioner and Ramkaran Bunkar. In reply to the allegations made by these respondents the petitioner has filed a rejoinder. The respondent No. 6 has filed its return and has opposed the petition. The respondent Nos. 12, 16 and 17 have also filed their return and have submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are false. They have further submitted that because the petitioner raises number of questions relating to the disputed facts, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) THE matter was directed to be listed for final hearing in motion hearing, therefore, it was listed for final hearing. Parties were heard on 28. 1. 1999. They have further submitted that because the petitioner raises number of questions relating to the disputed facts, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) THE matter was directed to be listed for final hearing in motion hearing, therefore, it was listed for final hearing. Parties were heard on 28. 1. 1999. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Shri Maninder Bhatti submits that once a nomination is accepted or rejected then the same cannot be reviewed subsequently by the returning officer because the returning officer for that purpose becomes Junctus officio. It is submitted by him that looking to the nature of the allegations the election cannot be termed to be fair and cannot be permitted to be stand. It was further submitted that the procedure for election of the members of the committee and the representatives is given in rule 41 of the Rules 1961 any as the said procedure is complete itself, any departure against the same is not permissible. The respondents have submitted before the Court that the manner in which the earlier returning officer was threatened and favourable reports were obtained by number of persons after intimidating the earlier returning officer the State was justified in intervening in the matter. It is further submitted that from the report of the election officer. Collector, and Suptd. of Police it would clearly appear that the returning officer was not permitted to act freely and fairly and the report dated 21. 1. 1997 were not an out come of the free will and the scrutiny result was adversely affected because of the pressure exerted by the numbers of persons. It is also submitted by them that as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file a dispute under Section 64 that Court should not entertain the petition because there the petitioner can always lead proper evidence on the factual dispute. Referring to Rule 41, it was contended that the State is bound by the rule provided the thing go in accordance with law but when the facts like present were presented before the State, the State is authorised to intervene in the matter and issue direction to the authorities to see that the elections are held in accordance with law. Referring to Rule 41, it was contended that the State is bound by the rule provided the thing go in accordance with law but when the facts like present were presented before the State, the State is authorised to intervene in the matter and issue direction to the authorities to see that the elections are held in accordance with law. Referring to Section 49-C, it was contended that the Government's his power to give directions in public interest, the State was justified in asking the newly appointed returning officer to re-scrutinise the papers. The other respondents submitted that the State was absolutely justified in directing appointment of the new returning officer and in view of the report of the earlier returning officer the State was justified in asking the newly appointed returning officer to re-scrutinise the nomination papers. ( 8 ) I have heard the parties at length. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has made substantial allegations against the respondent no. 8. The respondent No. 8 in his counter-affidavit has challenged the correctness of the allegations. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder in support of his allegations. The other respondents have also challenged the correctness and truthfulness of the allegations made by the petitioner. It would not be possible for this Court to enter into the arena of questions of disputed facts. It would not be possible for this Court to hold a fact finding inquiry or to record a finding either in favour of the petitioner or against the respondent No. 8, the registrar, the Joint Registrar or other administrative authorities. When an allegation is made by some one and denied by the others then an inquiry into the facts is necessary. As making an inquiry is not within the jurisdiction of this Court, I do not propose to dwell further into the said facts. Rule 41 (9) (a) provides that nomination papers duly received shall be scrutinized by the returning officer on the date fixed for the scrutiny under Clause (c) of sub-rule (2 ). The returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a material character. Rule 41 (9) (a) provides that nomination papers duly received shall be scrutinized by the returning officer on the date fixed for the scrutiny under Clause (c) of sub-rule (2 ). The returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a material character. The returning officer can reject a nomination paper for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the nomination paper is not in accordance with the rules or that candidate was disqualified to be elected or his proposer or seconder was disqualified to vote. ( 10 ) THE word 'scrutiny' means analysis, close study, examination, exploration, inquiry, investigation etc. Under the Scheme of the Act. The scrutiny of the form is to be conducted so that the form is examined in accordance with the requirement of law. When a thing is under scrutiny, it is being studied or observed very carefully. If the process of scrutiny is polluted because of the external pressure exerted upon the officer conducting scrutiny or he is not permitted to apply his free will, mind and the wisdom then the process certainly is adversely affected. The respondents have made factual allegations that the scrutiny could not be conducted properly because R. S. L. Shrivastava was intimidated and was not permitted to exercise his free will. Whether the pressure was exerted by respondent No. 8 or by. the petitioner or the other person in the office when R. S. L. Shrivastava was scrutinizing the nomination forms, the process was adversely affected. It would not be proper for this Court to enter into this controversy because the moment this Court undertakes to enter upon that question this Court would be called upon to hold a fact finding enquiry. The petitioner instead of going to the Tribunal as proposed to come to this Court had he gave to the Tribunal these allegations could be entered into but these proceedings, it would not be proper for this court to make an enquiry into all these allegations. " In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to and in accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. .