The petitioner is aggrieved that while he, after having filed the nomination papers in the form 'C' as per election rules of the Manipur State Cooperative Union, as a delegate of a member society for participation in the election of new members of the Managing Body of the said union scheduled to be held on 30.3.2004, was awaiting for necessary processes to be completed, and the order dated 27.3.2004 (Annexure-A/13) was issued by the Secretary (Cooperation), Govt. of Manipur to postpone the said election on the ground of having received various written complaints alleging irregularities in the election process and the concerned returning officer also issued the order (Annexure- A/14) on 20.3.2004 postponing the said election purportedly in the public interest in pursuance of the said order of the State Government. According to the petitioner, the said order dated 27.3.2004 has nullified his right to become the elected member of the Managing Body of the union and also his desire to become the President or other office bearer of the union. Further, according to the petitioner, the order was passed by the Secretary (Cooperation), Govt. of Manipur without giving any chance of being heard to the interested parties as well as without considering the report submitted to him by the Registrar( CS) giving explanation against the proposal for postponement of the said election. 2. I have heard the parties through their respective counsel. The materials before me are also perused. The impugned order (Annexure-A/13) dated 27.3.2004 passed by the Secretary (Cooperation), Govt. of Manipur is as follows:- “O R D E R Imphal, the 27th March,2004. No. 9/94/98-Coop: Whereas various written complaints have been received by the Government on the alleged irregularities of the election process taken by the Manipur State Coop. Union for election of new Members of Managing Body of the Union in the Special General Body Meeting scheduled to be held on 30.3.2004. Whereas the complaints have been examined minutely and the following irregularities among others are found: - (i) Out of 377 eligible members, the Union sent the Notification No. MSCU/5/Vol-vi/99 dated 12.3.2004 with Form 'A' only to 113 members under Certificates of posting on 15.3.,2004, leaving majority 264 eligible members. Therefore, it violates election Rule No. 6 of the Union. Whereas the complaints have been examined minutely and the following irregularities among others are found: - (i) Out of 377 eligible members, the Union sent the Notification No. MSCU/5/Vol-vi/99 dated 12.3.2004 with Form 'A' only to 113 members under Certificates of posting on 15.3.,2004, leaving majority 264 eligible members. Therefore, it violates election Rule No. 6 of the Union. (ii) The Union failed to make available Form 'B' or 'C' or 'D' to all eligible members thereby depriving the right to contest as candidate among willing members for the election. Therefore, it violates Election Rule No. 7 of the Union. (iii) Due to failure to make available the required Forms to the eligible members in time, no requisite number of representatives from Imphal East, Bishnupur, Thoubal, Ukhrul District, etc. could be represented. Therefore, it violates bye-laws No. 23 (i) (c) (i) (ii) & f(1) & (ii) of the Union. Now, therefore, the State Government, having considered the observations, hereby orders to postpone the election of new members of Managing Body in the Spl.General Body meeting of the Manipur State Cooperative Union scheduled to be held on 30.3.2004 in public interest with immediate effect.” 3. The State Government purportedly after due consideration of complaints regarding irregularities in the election process taken by the Manipur State Cooperative Union in connection with the election of new members of Managing Body of the Union and on finding certain irregularities in that regard, issued the impugned order. There is dispute if there has been in fact violation of the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of the relevant election rules or not. The following facts are, however, ascertained that out of 18 members to be elected, only 12 candidates are found to have validly filed their nomination papers and that none is found to have filed his/her nomination papers in respect of the members to be elected for Imphal East District, Bisnupur District, Ukhrul District, Thoubal District level cooperative societies and primary cooperative organisation. Further, for 4 members to be elected from Imphal West, only 4 candidates are found to have validly filed their nomination papers, for 2 members to be elected from Churachandpur , only 2 candidates are found to have validly filed their nomination papers , for 2 members to be elected for Senapati only 2 candidates are found to have validly filed their nomination papers , for 1 member to be elected from Tamenglong District only 1 candidate is found to have validly filed his nomination paper and for 2 members to be elected from Chandel only 3 candidates are found to have validly filed their nomination papers . In the above circumstance, only in respect of Chandel district, election will have to be performed. The fact of filing nomination papers by only some candidates is an indication of possibility that either majority of the eligible 377 members of the Union has not received the notice in connection with the election or most of the said eligible members are not interested in the election. In this background, the impugned order passed purportedly after findings irregularities in the election process is not to be interfered with lightly. In my opinion, on the basis of the materials before the court it cannot be categorically concluded that at least 15 days notice was given for nomination of delegates to the member societies and as such, there is possibility that the concerned members societies did not get sufficient time for nomination of their respective delegates thereby depriving them of their rights to nominate their delegates. In the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, it will not be proper for this court to determine the said dispute in respect of the election process. 4. Section 154 of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Act, 1976, interalia, empowers the State Government to call for and examine the records of any proceedings, not being the proceeding in respect of which an appeal lies to the tribunal, to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or legality or propriety of any decision or order made therein and if it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or remitted for reconsideration, it may order accordingly. There cannot be any doubt that it was within the power of the state Government to examine the said election process in order to satisfy itself as to its regularity, legality or propriety. It was also within the power of the State government to annul or modify the said election process if it considers that it should be annulled or modified. 5. In the present case, the impugned order dated 27.3.2004 purportedly after taking into consideration of irregularities in the election process ordered to postpone the election scheduled to be held on 30.3.2004. Now, the question is if the said order postponing the election is an order prejudicial to any person or not. If it is an order prejudicial to any person ,then, as per provision of Section 154(2) of Manipur Cooperative Societies Act, 1976, opportunity of making his representation should have been given to the concerned person before passing the order. In my considered opinion, the impugned order postponing the election cannot be considered as one prejudicial to any person. It is in the interest of all, including the member societies and candidates, that the election of new members of Managing Body of the Union be held regularly, properly and in accordance with law. The impugned order nowhere states that the election process already taken has been annulled. One cannot reasonably conclude that by postponing the said election purportedly for ensuring due compliance with the relevant law, any prejudice has been caused to any person. No candidate can claim under the relevant law that the election should be proceeded irrespective of having knowledge by the concerned authority about irregularity, illegality or impropriety of the election process. At the same time, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no right of holding any post or of being member of the Managing Body can be said to have been acquired by the petitioner under the relevant law before postponing the said election. In my opinion, since the impugned order was not one prejudicial to any person including the petitioner, there was no need of giving any opportunity of making his representation before the passing the order. 6. In my opinion, since the impugned order was not one prejudicial to any person including the petitioner, there was no need of giving any opportunity of making his representation before the passing the order. 6. It is also to be noted that as per section 91(1) of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Act, 1976, a dispute concerning the functioning of cooperative societies including dispute touching election of the office bearers is required to be referred by any of the parties of the dispute to the Registrar. As per sub-section (2) of sec.91, when any question arises whether for the purpose of sub-sec.(1), the matter referred to for decision is a dispute or not., the question shall be considered by the Registrar whose decision shall be final. Further as per sub-sec. (3) of sec. 91 of the said Act, save as otherwise provided under subsec.(3) of Sec. 93, no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any disputes referred to in sub-sec. (1). The above said provisions clearly show that in respect of dispute in connection with functioning of cooperative societies including the dispute touching election of the office bearers should first be referred to the Registrar instead of resorting to other legal process. By this, I am not saying that the above provision of sec. 91 of the Act barred the petitioner from approaching to this court under article 226 of the Constitution. The only point to be noted is that in view of the express intention of the legislature to let disputes in connection with the functioning of the cooperative societies to be dealt by the Registrar first instead of allowing the parties to go to court , in the absence of any special circumstance, this court will not entertain the writ petition concerning the dispute arising in connection with the functioning the cooperative societies. 7. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is not interfered with. This writ petition is accordingly rejected. The State respondents will have to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law in order to ensure that duly elected Managing Body of the union starts functioning within a reasonable time.