JUDGMENT : Elections to the 12 out of 14 posts of. Directors in the 2nd respondent-Karnataka State Co-operative Consumer Federation Limited, a body, registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’), were held on 20-7-2009 pursuant to the calendar of events notified on 24-6-2009 Annexure-A. Two other nominated Directors of the 2nd respondent are said to be the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and the Managing Director of the Federation. 2. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 filed two Dispute Nos.5 and 6/2009-10 before the 3rd respondent-Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies calling in question the order of the 1st respondent holding that they were ineligible to participate in the elections to the post of Directors in the 2nd respondent-Federation, and in which the 3rd respondent, by interim orders dated 10-7-2009 Annexures-C and C1, permitted them to the included in the electoral list, followed by a corrigendum dated 11-7-2009 Annexure-D, by way of compliance, and another notification dated 14-7-2009 Annexure-E including respondents 4 and 5 as eligible to participate in the elections to be held on 20-7-2009. The respondents on being so included filed their nominations of even date dated 11-7-2009 Annexures-F and F1. 3. It is the allegation of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 though ineligible to contest the elections to the post of Directors of the 2nd respondent, since the said Societies did not transact business with the 2nd respondent to an extent of Rs. Five lakhs in each co-operative year during the preceding five co-operative years, in terms of the notification dated 9-8-2006 of the State Government issued under Section 17-A (sic) of the Act, nevertheless are seeking to contest the election to the post of President of the 2nd respondent to be held on 31-7-2009, though no notification is issued. Hence these petitions. 4. Admittedly the elections to choose 12 Directors of the 2nd respondent is concluded, whence the petitioner, unsuccessfully contested the elections. Indisputedly the petitioner is entitled to call in question the election to the Directorship of the 2nd respondent by filing a dispute under Section 70 of the Act. The petitioner instead of raising a dispute, has called in question the inclusion of respondents 4 and 5 as eligible candidates to contest the elections already held and concluded. Indisputedly the petitioner is entitled to call in question the election to the Directorship of the 2nd respondent by filing a dispute under Section 70 of the Act. The petitioner instead of raising a dispute, has called in question the inclusion of respondents 4 and 5 as eligible candidates to contest the elections already held and concluded. The notification to hold election to the post of President of 2nd respondent, admittedly is not issued as on today. 5. In the circumstances, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy to call in question the elections to the Directors of the 2nd respondent-Federation disentitling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The contention that respondents 2 and 5 are ineligible to participate in the election to the post of President to be allegedly held on 31-7-2009, is without merit, in the absence of a notification and even otherwise the result of that election too could be questioned in a dispute under Section 70 of the Act. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are not maintainable and are, accordingly rejected keeping open all contentions to be pressed into service in the election dispute.