Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The petitioner-appellant is aggrieved that the learned Judge did not interfere on the writ petition (CWJC. No. 11505 of 2002 : Vijay Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors.) 3. The contention of the petitioner- appellant was that he had brought an election petition with a complaint that respondents 6 to 18 could not be permitted to stand in election regard being had to the circumstances made out in sub-clause (f) of Rule 23 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rule, 1959. The election petition had been sustained under rule 21-X of the Rules. 4. Rule 21-X relegates the parties who may be aggrieved on the declaration of a result to take recourse to Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Section 48 sub-clause (8) provides a remedy, to the effect, that where it appears to the Registrar either on an application or on his motion, to make a statement of a case and refer it to the District Judge for a decision and the decision of the District Judge would be final. A remedy has been provided within Section 48 itself. 5. In the circumstances, the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner-appellant was misplaced and misconceived. He ought to have moved the Registrar to seek a statement of a case to the District Judge. 6. All that has heppened on the writ petition is that the learned Judge has declined to interfere with the decision of the Registrar on the eiection petition. The issues still remain between the petitioner-appellant, who challenged the election, and the respondents who were successful in it. In case the petitioner-appellant desires to take recourse to a remedy under sub-clause (8) of Section 48 of the Act then he may do so even now provided he exercises his option within 30 days from today. No observation made in the order of the writ petition, if the remedy is so exercised, would affect the reference so made for decision by the District Judge. 7. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 8. Consigned.