ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER challenges the order dated 1-11-2001 passed by the M. P. Co-oprative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") on the ground of jurisdictional competence to interfere once the election process had commenced. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of M. P. Co-oprative Secieties Act. Petitiner-society received application of 24 persons for admitting them to the membership of the society; their forms were found to be defective, therefore, they were rejected. Two revisions were filed before the Tribunal revision Nos. 166 and 177. They were decided by the common order dated 11-9-2001 (Annexurep/1 ). The revisions were allowed and the order dated 2-12-2000 passed by the committee was quashed and it was directed that petitioner should again submit their application in the prescribed form and deposit it to the co-operative society along with requiste amount of share capital, membership fee etc. After compliance of these directions, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been admitted as member in the co-oprative society. Thereafter the applications were filed for membership on 5-10-2001; petitioners submit that said applications were not in accordance with the prescribed form and the bye-laws of the society as contained in Annexure P/2. Same were considered and found to be defective. The applicants were asked to rectify the defects, but the defects were not removed. Letter was sent to each of the applicant to rectity the defects. Meanwhile, the elections of the society were notified and returning officer was appointed on 27-10-2001 by Deputy Registrar, Co-oprative Society, District Bhopal. As per election programme the list of members was to be supplied by the society to the election officer on 7-11-2001. List of voters was to be published by the election officer on 10-11-2001. Objections were to be invited on the list till 20/11/2001. Final voters list was to be published on 23-11-2001. Reservation was to be decided on 26-11-2001; meeting of general council was to be announced on 27-11-2001; nominations were to be accepted on 4-12 and 5-12-2001; scrutiny of nomination was to be held on 6-12-2001. Withdrawal of the nomination/allotment of the symbol and the final list of the candidates was to be published on 7-12-2001. Polling was to be held on 14-12-2001. Co-optation was to be made on 15-12-2001 and nomination on 16-12-2001. Withdrawal of the nomination/allotment of the symbol and the final list of the candidates was to be published on 7-12-2001. Polling was to be held on 14-12-2001. Co-optation was to be made on 15-12-2001 and nomination on 16-12-2001. Since the applications for new membership were not allowed by the society on the ground that they were not complete, mattter again traveled to the Tribunal; revision No. 434/2001 was filed by Laxminarayan Sharma before the Tribunal which was dismissed on 22-11-2001 as per order Annexure P/6. The Tribunal refused to interfere on the ground that election process has commenced and no interference can be made by the Tribunal and objection was to be considered by the election officer. In para 10 of order P/6 following observations were made by the Tribunal : -" A perusal of the documents submitted by the non-applicats and in particular letter dated 23-10-2001 it appears that 21 deemed members have not yet completed the form in the manner as directed by the society inasmuch as they have not rectified the mistakes pointed out in this letter. It is a question of fact as to whether they have complied these directions and if so then they can be treated to be deemed members. Objection on this point is also pending before the election officer which is to be decided on 23-11-2001. While deciding this objection the learned election officer can go into this question and can take appropriate decisions. "the revision petition was dismissed. ( 3 ) THE election officer on 23-11-2001 passed the order Annexure P/7. Election officer found that the defect were not removed by the concerned members as such the persons who had applied on 5-10-2001 could not be treated as members. The matter was again taken to the Tribunal; the order passed by the election officer was challenged in revision No. 456/2001 decided on 1-12-2001. The Tribunal took the view that election officer has not acted properly by not including the names in the voters list and in not treating the incumbents who had applied on 5-10-2001 as members of the society and relying upon Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav 2000 (8) SCC 46 took the view that date of filing of the nomination paper was 4-12-2001. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav 2000 (8) SCC 46 took the view that date of filing of the nomination paper was 4-12-2001. The revision was allowed with respect to 11 persons and the Tribunal directed that election programme shall again be revised by the election officer and election be held according to law. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 in their return contend that the order passed by the Tribunal is proper and the proviso to Section 64 (2) (v) of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act of 1960") is not attracted. Thus, interference could be made by the Tribunal under Section 77 of the Act of 1960. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that the order is illegal, arbitrary, impermissible and is without jurisdiction. There was no jurisdiction with the Tribunal to interfere in the process of election and to direct postponement of the election and re-schedulement. This exercise is prohibited as per proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act of 1960. It is further contended that against non-inclusion of a person as a member an appeal lies to the Registrar within 90 days from the date of rejection and decision of the Registrar in appeal shall be final and Registrar shall communicate his decision to the party within thirty days from the date thereof. Thus, matter could not be taken up by the Tribunal as to the membership directly in revision under Section 77 (14) of the Act of 1960 without such persons availing remedy of appeal provided in Section 19 of the Act 1960. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submits that order is proper; membership was wrongfully denied; action was mala fide; thus, interference was rightly made by the Tribunal and no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that election process commences from the date of nomination and date of declaration of result. He places reliance on Shyamdo Pd. Singh (supra ). He further places reliance on Indrajit Barua v. Election Commissioner of India AIR 1986 SC 103 to contend that prepraration of electoral rolls is not a process of election. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the dispute was pending for last more than one year between the parties as to membership of 24 persons. Singh (supra ). He further places reliance on Indrajit Barua v. Election Commissioner of India AIR 1986 SC 103 to contend that prepraration of electoral rolls is not a process of election. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the dispute was pending for last more than one year between the parties as to membership of 24 persons. Section 19 of the Act of 1960 deals with the admission of a member to a society. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 prescribed the eligibility. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 19 inserted on 7-8-1999 by Amendment Act 20 of 1999, provided that if any person duly qualified for admission as a member under the provisions of this Act and bye-laws of the society makes an application for membership of such society, he shall be deemed to have been admitted as member of such society from the date of receipt of the application in the office thereof. It isalso provided that Registrar on his own motion or on an application within fifteen days from the aforesaid date declare such person as not eligible for membership of such society for the reasons mentioned therein. Such decision has to be rendered within 45 days. Under sub-section (4) of section 19 if a person is refused admission as a member in a society, the decision refusing admission shall be communicated by the society to that person within 30 days of the date of such decision. Sub-section (5) Section 19 provided that no society shall, without sufficient cause, refuse admission to membership to any person, duly qualified therefor under the provisions of this Act and the bye-laws of the society. According to sub-section (6) of Section 19 any person aggrieved by refusal of admission as a member may file an appeal to the Registrar within 90 days of the date of rejection. Sub-section (7) of Section 19 provides that decision of the Registrar in appeal shall be final and the Register shall communicate his decision to the parties within 30 days from the date thereof. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the Tribunal directed in revision No 166/2001 decided on 11-9-2001 the petitioners to submit their applications in the "prescribed form" and deposit it to co-operative society along with requisite amount of share capital, membership fee, etc. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the Tribunal directed in revision No 166/2001 decided on 11-9-2001 the petitioners to submit their applications in the "prescribed form" and deposit it to co-operative society along with requisite amount of share capital, membership fee, etc. The prescribed form is filed as part of Annexure P/5 which is an intimation also to Shri Laxminarayan Sharma pointing out that he had not filed his date of birth certificate, educational qualification certificate, his complete certified address, certificate of income of his family and the application form was not collected from the co-operative society. Laxminarayan Sharma was asked to remove the defects so that further action could be taken in the matter. The application filed by Laxminarayan Sharma has been placed on record with petition. The requisite certificates were not filed along with the application by Shri Laxminarayan Sharma and other applications also suffered with similar defects. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal while dismissing the revision No. 434/2001 filed by Shri Laxminarayan Sharma on 22-11-2001 had given the above quoted finding in para 10 of the Order P/6 from which it is clear that 21 members have not completed the forms in the manner directed by the society inasmuch as they have not rectified the mistakes pointed out. Once this view was taken by the Tribunal in the order dated 22-11-2001, the election officer was fully justified in not treating them as members as the defects were not removed as found by the Tribunal itself. Election officer was justified in passing the order Annexure P/7 on 23-11-2001 not treating those persons whose applications were not complete as members of the society. ( 10 ) THE Tribunal after passing the order Annexure P/6 on 22-11-2001 could not have interfered with in the proceedings of election. While pasing the order Annexurep/11 the Tribunal has interfered not only with the voters list, but has also directed postponement of the election which is an exercise which is without jurisdiction. ( 11 ) IN the matter of membership Section 19 of the Act of 1960 prescribes detailed procedure and the matter has to travel first to Registrar in appeal; Registrar was not approached in the matter and directly revision was filed before the Tribunal which interfered in the process of election in violation of statutory prohibition contained in Section 64 (2) (v) of the Act of 1960. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the election programme was notified on 27-10-2001 when the election officer was appointed as per Annexure P/4. Detailed programme (Annexurep/5) was published as per election programme the final voters list was to be published on 23-11-2001; date of nominations was 4-12-2001 and 5-12-2001; election was to be held on 14-12-2001. Rule 23 of M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (for short "the Rules of 1962") provides for registers of members and shares, list of members. Under clause (c) of Sub-rule (1) of rule 23 every society shall keep a register of members including the members who had disqualified before 45 days of the election of the committee members. This shall be made available to Returning officer under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 23, and shall be published on the notice board. Objections have to be invited; returning officer under clause (f) has to conduct an enquiry into the claims or objections as he thinks fit, and record his decision in writing and shall dispose off all claims and objections within 9 days form the date of publications of the list under clause (d) of sub-rule (3 ). Under clause (i) of sub-rule (1) of rule 23 the decision of the returning officer shall be final and binding and the list so made available by the society shall stand amended in accordance with such decision. The list so amended shall be published by exhibiting it at the office of the society under the seal and signature of the Returning Officer. The society shall prepare six copies of the list so amended and submit to the Returning Officer for his use at the polls. Under clause (j), the list so amended shall be final and the copy of the same duly certified shall be handed over by the returning officer or the person authorised by him to the society and Registrar. On receipt of final list under clause (i), the Registrar under clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 23 work out the reservation. Rule 23 clearly prescribes a detailed procedure for preparation of voters list which has been unduly interfered with by the Tribunal by directing the inclusion of 11 persons. ( 13 ) SECTION 64 of the Act of 1960 makes a provision for raising the disputes. Rule 23 clearly prescribes a detailed procedure for preparation of voters list which has been unduly interfered with by the Tribunal by directing the inclusion of 11 persons. ( 13 ) SECTION 64 of the Act of 1960 makes a provision for raising the disputes. Proviso to clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act of 1960 prohibits entertainment of any dispute during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of the results. Section 64 sub-section (2) clause (v) alongwith proviso is quoted below : -"64 (2) (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. " ( 14 ) THERE was dispute not only as to the membership, but as to inclusion of the names in the voters list; firstly the dispute as to the membership has to travel to the Registrar first in appeal not to the Tribunal; secondly the Registrar or the Tribunal are bound by proviso to clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act of 1960 which prohibits any interference being made once the election programme is announced till the declaration of result. The language is wide; the election programme was announced on 27-10- 2001 and in any case election process commenced effectively from 10-11-2001 the date on which the election officer published the provisional voters list. ( 15 ) THIS Court has taken the consistent view that election should be allowed to be completed peacefully without any interruption from any forum. In Shiv Narain Pandey v. Satish Tiwari 1998 RN 178, this Court laid down that no interference should be made by any forum in the process of election. ( 16 ) IN Radheshyam v. Chairman, Sahkari Samiti AIR 1976 MP 156 (Sic) this Court observed that election should be allowed to be completed unhindered. In Radheshyam v. Chairman, Sewa Sahkari Samiti 1989 0 MPLJ 208 : 1989 RN 99, this Court again emphasized that dispute as to the voter list should be raised in election dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 after election is over and not in the writ petition. In Radheshyam v. Chairman, Sewa Sahkari Samiti 1989 0 MPLJ 208 : 1989 RN 99, this Court again emphasized that dispute as to the voter list should be raised in election dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 after election is over and not in the writ petition. In Ramdeo Sharma v. Dy. Registrar, Gwalior 1993 RN 18, this Court again cautioned from making interference in the election process before its completion. Similar is the view taken by this Court in Ram Swaroop Dohare v Ayukta Sahkarita AIR 1996 MP 187 , Jagdish Sharma v. State of M. P. 1996 RN 60 and Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of M. P. 1996 RN 131. In Bhawani Shankar Sharma v. State of M. P. 1998 (2) MPLJ 20 ( AIR 1998 MP 254 ) this Court emphasized that dispute as to the election should be raised in the dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 after completion of the election. Registrar or Courts are cautioned not to make interference in peaceful completion of process. Dispute has to be raised and settled later on. ( 17 ) IN the instant case, the order passed by the election officer P/7 was interfered with in the midst of election when final voters list was already published and nominations were to be made on 4-12-2001 and 5-12-2001 In Shyamdoe Pd. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav (supra) in para 24, the Supreme Court laid down as under : - (at page 3009; of AIR)" 24. One of the principles underlying the plenary bar on judicial proceeding in election matters created by Article 329 (b) is the pre-emptory urgency of prompt engineering of the whole election process without intermediate interruptions by way of legal proceedings challenging the steps and stages in between the commencement and the conclusion. The same principle underlies sub-section (3) of Section 23 of 1950 Act. The last date for making nomination for elections in a constituency and the date of declaration of result are the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem between which the electoral rolls must remain untouched. Amendment (which will include inclusion), transposition or deletion of entries in electoral rolls are all toboos in this interregnum. The last date for making nomination for elections in a constituency and the date of declaration of result are the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem between which the electoral rolls must remain untouched. Amendment (which will include inclusion), transposition or deletion of entries in electoral rolls are all toboos in this interregnum. " ( 18 ) THE Supreme Court laid down that last date for making the nomination for elections in a constituency and the date of declaration of the result are the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem between which the electoral rolls should not be touched. ( 19 ) IN para 25, the Apex Court has held that meaningful democracy means participation of all eligible citizens. The need to hear and decide claims for inclusion in or exclusion from electoral rolls promptly and objectively, hardly needs to be emphasised. However, this could not have been a ground for avoiding election. In the instant case the election itself was directed to be postponed by the Tribunal which was clearly an impermissible act. ( 20 ) IN Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (1993) 4 SCC 216 ( AIR 1994 SC 1673 ) the Supreme Court observed in para 16 as under :- (at page 1681-1682; of AIR)" 16. Shri Ashok Desai contended that Section 144-T provides remedy of election petition. The specified officer is empowered to decide the election dispute expeditiously and his decision shall be final and conclusive. The writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable. It is further contended that every grower of sugarcane within the area of the operation of the Society is entitled to become a member of the Society. The State Government postponed the election due to drought etc. from time to time up to 30/09/1992. In the interregnum the growers that became members of the Society became entitled to participate in the democratic process of exercising their franchise to elect the members to manage the affairs of the committee. The Court, therefore, with a view to enable them to participate in the election process and to elect members of their choice permitted to incorporated their names in the provisional voters list as on 30/06/1992, since elections were not held till 30/09/1992. The words " general elections due" should be construed to be due according to law as on the date when the elections are to be held. The words " general elections due" should be construed to be due according to law as on the date when the elections are to be held. Since the results are not known in the counting, the fifth respondent had secured more than 4 to 5 thousand votes while new members enrolled were only 2 thousand. This case does not warrant interference under Article 136, Shri Bhasme, the learned senior counsel resisted the contentions. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions on either side. In N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ) Namakkal Constituency the legality and validity of rejection of the nomination of the intending candidate to the Parliamentary election was challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226. The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. On appeal, by leave under Article 132, this Court held that the wider meaning of the word election connotes the entire process culminating in a candidate being elected. The election should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. No significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election", and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the "election" and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress. (Emphasis supplied ). Accordingly, this Court upheld the view of the Madras High Court. In S. T. Muthuswami v. K. Natarajan ( AIR 1988 SC 616 ) in Tamil Nadu when elections to the Panchayat Union were being held there was a dispute between the two candidates as to who is the official candidate on behalf of the Indian National Congress (I) and entitled to the allotment of the symbol "hand". In S. T. Muthuswami v. K. Natarajan ( AIR 1988 SC 616 ) in Tamil Nadu when elections to the Panchayat Union were being held there was a dispute between the two candidates as to who is the official candidate on behalf of the Indian National Congress (I) and entitled to the allotment of the symbol "hand". Both the candidates, appellant and the respondent claimed as official candidate but the Returning Officer on consent allotted different symbols as it was not cleared before acceptance of nomination. Later on clarification was issued by Tamil Nadu Congress (I) that the appellant was allotted symbol of " hand". The Returning Officer issued Errata accordingly, calling in question the Errata the respondent filed the writ petition which was dismissed by a Single Judge and on appeal the Division Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the Errata. When the matter was brought by special leave under Article 136, this Court held that T. N. Panchayats Act, 1958 and the Rules provided forum to decide election disputes though alternative forum does not have the effect of overriding the powers of the High Court under Article 226 but it may be taken into consideration in determining whether it would be appropriate for the High Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 in a particular case. (Emphasis supplied) Taking on overall view of the facts, this Court held that the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be supported and the validity of the election should be decided in the alternative forum provided under that Act. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Therefore, this Court held that there is no constitutional bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction in respect of election to local bodies. It is equally sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have the dispute decided speedily through the machinery of election petition and decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction in election dispute. It is equally sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have the dispute decided speedily through the machinery of election petition and decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction in election dispute. Once the election process was set in motion according to law any illegality or irregularity committed while the election process is in progress or the conduct of the election is vitiated by any illegality or irregularity in its process, the proper remedy is to lay the action before the tribunal constituted under that Act by means of an election petition and have the dispute adjudicated without the election process being interdicted or retarded midway. The High Court or this Court while exercising the constituent plenary power under Article 226 or 32 or under 136, as the case may be, would decline to interfere with the election process and relegate the parties to take recourse to the alternative remedy of the election petition provided under the statute. When the order of the Court issued under Article 226 is the foundation for a preparation for electoral roll contrary to or dehors the Act or Rules and bye-laws and the election process is founded thereon, it is not during the election process. If the order is vitiated by an error of law, the tribunal has no power or jurisdiction to go into its legality which is destructive of judicial discipline. Moreover, that cannot be impugned in an election petition nor the tribunal has the power or jurisdiction to determine the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the High Court or this Court. The only appropriate forum would, therefore, be the High Court itself or on appeal this Court, to correct it if need be and no other forum. The appellants had approached the High Court, apprised it of the facts and sought modification of the order so that it be in conformity with Rule 4 (1) of the Rules. The High Court should have corrected the order but it failed to exercise that power. " ( 21 ) IT was observed that election should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. " ( 21 ) IT was observed that election should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. No significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election", and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the "election" and enable the person affected to call it in question they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress. ( 22 ) IN Election Commission of India through Secretary. Ashok Kumar AIR 2000 SC 2979 , in para 32 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the conclusions. Para 32 is quoted below :- (at page 2986-2987) " 32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what made by us hereinabove :- (1) If an election (the term "election" being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of the result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it, subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. (4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the Court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles, therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdictiion of the Court. (5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329 (b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the Court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material. " ( 23 ) IT cannot be said that case of the petitioner would fall in any of the clauses where interference could be made by the Tribunal by postponing the election. ( 24 ) IN Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahkari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 509 ( AIR 2001 SC 3982 ) their Lordships held that the preparation of provisional list of voters, filing of objection against the provisional list of voters, consideration of the objection by the Collector and finalising the list of voters, all occur in Rules which cover the entire process of the election. The Rules framed for election of specified societies are a complete code in itself providing for the entire process of election beginning from the stage of preparation of the provisional voters' list, decision on the objection by the Collector, finalisation of electoral rolls, holding of election and declaration of result of the election. The Rules framed for election of specified societies are a complete code in itself providing for the entire process of election beginning from the stage of preparation of the provisional voters' list, decision on the objection by the Collector, finalisation of electoral rolls, holding of election and declaration of result of the election. The preparation of the voters' list must be held to be part of the election process for constituting the Managing Committee of a specified co-operative society. The decision was rendered in the context of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which appears to be pari materia provision to the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Relevant portion of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan swami case (supra) in para 7 is quoted below : -"in the light of the aforestated provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Act and the Rules, we will examine as to whether preparation of electoral rolls is an intermediate stage in the process of election. The provisions referred to above show that Chapter XI-A was enacted and the Rules were framed specially to deal with the election of the specified societies under Section 73-G of the Act. Section 144-X provides that various stages of election shall also include preparation of the list of voters. Once the statute provides that the preparation of the voters' list shall be part of the election process, there is no reason to hold that the preparation of the electoral roll is not an intermediate stage in the process of the election of a specified society. This matter can be examined from another angle. A perusal of the Rules discloses that the preparation of provisional list of voters, filing of objection against the provisional list of voters, consideration of the objection by the Collector and finalising the list of voters, all occur in the Rules which cover the entire process of the election. The Rules framed for election of specified societies are a complete code in itself providing for the entire process of election beginning from the stage of preparation of the provisional voters' list, decision on the objection by the Collector, finalisation of electoral rolls, holding of election and declaration of result of the election. In view of the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the preparation of voters' list must be held to be part of the election process for constituting the Managing Committee of a specified society. In view of the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the preparation of voters' list must be held to be part of the election process for constituting the Managing Committee of a specified society. " ( 25 ) THEIR Lordships in para 12 summed up as under :-"12. In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is will settled that the High Court, should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach or rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellants to challenge the election of the returned candidate, is aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the Election Tribunal. " ( 26 ) IN the instant case firstly Laxminarayan Sharma and other applicants have to crystalize their rights of membership before the Registrar if they are aggrieved by the action of the society, even if they are wrongly deprived of inclusion of their names in the voter list they have remedy u/sec 64 of the Act of 1960. The Tribunal itself found in para 10 of the order dated 22-11-2001 (Annexure P/6) that forms were incomplete; thus, the order P/7 passed by the election officer was just and proper and Tribunal has unnecessarily interfered with the order in contravention of the proviso to clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act of 1960. ( 27 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Tribunal has erred in passing the order Annexure P/11 on 1-12-2001 interfering in the election process and directing postponement of the election. The order impugned is quashed; the election officer is directed to conduct the election expeditiously and conclude it. ( 28 ) RESULTANTLY, the petition is allowed. Cost on parties. The order impugned is quashed; the election officer is directed to conduct the election expeditiously and conclude it. ( 28 ) RESULTANTLY, the petition is allowed. Cost on parties. ( 29 ) THE observations or any finding made in the present order shall not come in the way of the petitioner in filing the dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 which has to be decided on its own merits unfettered by any finding recorded in this order on merits of the case. Petition allowed. .