ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire election proceedings for the election of delegate so far as group 4 this concern. (Iii) That, the answering respondents may kindly be restrained from proceeding further as far as election of directors of Durg District whole sale consumer cooperative store is concern. (iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the preliminary issue/objection concerning membership of respondent No.6 before proceeding with the election in question. (v) Any other relief, which this Hon 'ble Court deems fit, may also be granted. (vi) Cost of the petition may kindly be paid." 2. In this petition, filed on 30-1-2008, it is admitted position that after filing of this petition, election of delegates and Directors of Durg District had already taken place. 3. The issue involved in this petition, as is evident from the prayer above mentioned, has become infructuous, as it is a trite law that no dispute with regard to election can be challenged in any other petition except in election petition. 4. In the matter of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. The Returning Officer Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist. and others•, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts having been expressly excluded) "and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition." 5. In the matter of Manda Jagannath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "12. In our opinion, whether the returning officer is justified in rejecting this Form B submitted by the first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only. 19. In Election Commission of India Vs. In our opinion, whether the returning officer is justified in rejecting this Form B submitted by the first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only. 19. In Election Commission of India Vs. Shivaji (supra) this Court while considering a challenge to the election notification which included certain Zila Parishads within a notified constituency, held following the judgment in Ponnuswami (supra) that even if there was any ground relating to the noncompliance with the provisions of the Act and the Constitution on which the validity of any election process could be questioned, the person interested in questioning the election has to wait till the election is over and institute a petition in accordance with section 81 of the Act calling in question the election of the successful candidate." 6. In the case of Harnek Singh Vs. Charanjit Singh and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the efficacious alternative remedy under provisions of law is available, the High Court in exercise of plenary jurisdiction may not order quashing the election of the elected chairman or to start fresh election process. 7. Section 64(2)(v) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960") provides for a petition before the Registrar in connection with the election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society. Since election had already taken place, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to question the election of delegates and Directors in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to take recourse to provisions of Section 64(2)(v) of the Act, 1960, if so advised. 8. In view of the foregoing, this petition has become infructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. However, on the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the above stated provisions of law, if so advised. 9. Consequently, all the pending applications stand disposed of. Petition Dismissed. 2. JT2004(5)Se8 3. (2005) 8 see 383