ORDER 1. Application U/S 77 (14) of MP Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for short, ('the Act') has been filed against the communication of the Registrar Co-operative Societies dated 17.7.2007 made to Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ujjain. 2. In brief, the applicant is a District Level Whole Sale Store whose Elections have been in process. However, the Registrar through the impugned communication holding that the Returning Officer has not correctly and legally scrutinized the objections raised with regard to the member list has directed that the process be started all over again from the stage of scrutiny of the objections. 3. Learned counsel Shri Sanjay Bajpai appearing for the applicants submitted that the election process could not have been interfered by the Registrar through the impugned communication. He also submitted that the subsequent to this event the new Election Officer was appointed and he published another voter list dated 28.7.2007, vide which new members were enrolled. The Tribunal after considering above development had passed the status-quo order in respect of elections to be maintained till further orders. The counsel for the applicants urged that after setting aside the communication of the Registrar which is unlawful and illegal, the elections should be directed to be admitted from the stage they were interfered by the communication of the Registrar. Counsel placed reliance on the following citations in support of his above arguments :-- i) Gwalior Wholesale Cloth Market Housing Co-op. Society v. Yogesh Gupta, 2006 RN 132 ii) Rambharose Yadav v. Director, Land Development Bank, Gwalior, 1997 (I) MPWN 171 iii) Bhagwati Bai v. R.K. Katulkar and others, 2005 RN 455 iv) Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd. Satna v. Sanchalak Mandal, Satna 2005 RN 405 4. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicants No. 1 to 3 submitted that there were irregularities and illegality committed by the Returning Officer in considering the objection raised about the finalization of the member list. There was no other way left for the Registrar except directing him to consider the objections afresh because unless they are enrolled as members they cannot even file an election dispute after the elections are over as they cannot be treated to be affected parties unless they are enrolled as members. 5. There was no other way left for the Registrar except directing him to consider the objections afresh because unless they are enrolled as members they cannot even file an election dispute after the elections are over as they cannot be treated to be affected parties unless they are enrolled as members. 5. Learned counsel Shri O.P. Patidar appearing on behalf of the non-applicant No.4 submitted that according to Section 19 of the Act, Primary Consumer Store when applies and if not refused an admission as membership should be deemed to be a member, but because the intervenor was not treated to be a member there was a case of interference by the Registrar. He thus submitted that the election should be started from the stage the list of members was modified subsequently by the subsequent Returning Officer. 6. Thus the only point to be considered in the matter is this that whether it was open for the Registrar to interfere in the election process vide his communication dated 17.7.2007. Proviso of Clause 5 of sub-section (2) of Section 64 provides that, "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 Result." It may be argued that it is not entertaining any dispute by the Registrar and it is only a communication of observing the procedure laid down in the Act while scrutinizing the nomination papers. It is however evident that on the next date of this communication i.e. 17.7.2007 of the Registrar, the Returning Officer of the appellant Store Sunita Gotwal on 18.7.2007 communicated that election process of the applicant Store has been stayed forthwith and the same should be communicated to all concerned. 7. Learned counsel Shri O.P. Patidar further submits that the Registrar had not interfered or stayed the election process and the same has been continued with the publication of fresh member list but this communication of Returning Officer dated 18.7.2007 clearly shows that the election was stayed without any legal ground and it is a case of clear interference in the process of election which cannot be justified. Learned counsel Shir O.P. Patidar also pointed out that the citations on which the learned counsel for the applicant has relied are applicable when the election were stayed. Learned counsel Shir O.P. Patidar also pointed out that the citations on which the learned counsel for the applicant has relied are applicable when the election were stayed. This statement itself is sufficient to conclude that the election process was stayed by the Returning Officer under instructions from the Registrar as stated by the Returning Officer in her letter dated 18.7.2007. Therefore, the applicability of the citations produced by the applicant does not remain under question. 8. As regard the deeming provision applicable for the members supplying to be member it has been pointed out that the cases are already under consideration of Court. It has been clearly mentioned in the note sheet of the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, H.Q. dated 10.7.2007 that the issue of membership is pending in the Tribunal. Thus, if the issue of membership is pending in a Court, the deeming provision cannot be supposed to be applicable unless it has been held so by the competent Court. Thus, the arguments forwarded that the Returning Officer did not comply this provision is not relevant and proper upto the mark. Further, this issue can also not been considered at this level because the simple point we have to decide is the validity of the communication of the Registrar dated 17.7.2007. 9. Obviously the scrutiny undertaken by the Returning Officer is a quasi judicial activity and the same cannot be interfered by an administrative communication without following any authority or procedure prescribed in law. We therefore find it wholly improper that the Registrar has not only interfered through the impugned communication in the election process but has also directed to undo an exercise which the Returning Officer had legally undertaken as provided in law. 10. As a result of above analysis, the impugned communication of the Registrar is set aside and it is directed that the election process of the applicant Whole Sale Store be started afresh from the stage they were left before the intervention of the Registrar through the impugned communication dated 17.7.2007. 11. With the aforesaid direction, revision stands disposed of.