JUDGMENT MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - Petitioners Indu Lata Aggarwal and Sunita Garg, have preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the election result (sheet) dated 26.9.2010 (Annexure P11) of The Satluj Cooperative House Building Society Limited (respondent No.4) (for brevity “respondent-Society”) registered under the provisions of The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), inter-alia on the ground that 110 out of 438 members were not permitted to cast their votes by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent No.3). 2. The claim of the petitioners was contested by the respondents, who have filed their separate written statements, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of election petition, challenging the election result (sheet) (Annexure P11); cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. The contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and relevant provisions of law with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition is not directly maintainable at this stage. 4. As is evident from the record, that the petitioners have challenged the election result (sheet) dated 26.9.2010 (Annexure P11), inter-alia on the ground of non-permission of casting of votes to the eligible members/voters and the method/procedure to conduct the election. 5. The preliminary objection/argument of learned counsel for contesting respondents that since the alternative remedy of election petition is available to the petitioners, so, their writ petition, challenging the election result (sheet) is not maintainable, has considerable force. On the contrary, the cosmetic contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as the Assistant Registrar was the Returning Officer, therefore, no dispute is maintainable before the Registrar, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. What is not disputed here is that the Returning Officer has already completed the election process and declared the result (Annexure P11), (which is under challenge in this petition), in view of Rule 11(1) of Appendix 'C' of the Rules framed under the Act. 6. What is not disputed here is that the Returning Officer has already completed the election process and declared the result (Annexure P11), (which is under challenge in this petition), in view of Rule 11(1) of Appendix 'C' of the Rules framed under the Act. Sequelly, Rule 12 (2) postulates that “if any dispute arises in connection with the election of any officer, of the society, it shall be referred within 90 days of the date of declaration of the result of such election to the Registrar in the same manner as provided in Rule 51 of the Rules.” 7. Likewise, Rule 51 further posits that “when a party to the dispute referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 55 desires to have that dispute determined in accordance with the provisions of the said section, the party shall apply to the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act.” 8. A conjoint reading of these provisions would reveal that if any dispute in regard to declaration of result has arisen between the parties, then any party may file the election petition before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, irrespective of the fact that the Returning Officer was the Assistant Registrar. This matter is not res integra and is well settled. 9. An identical question came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 9.3.2004 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.17761 of 2003 titled as “Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab and others”. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:- “We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and examined the records of the case. Mr. I.S. Saggu, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his endeavour to show that the writ, despite availability of remedy of election petition, shall be competent, relies upon a judgment of Single Bench of this court in Sher Chand and others Vs. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur and others 1995 (1) PLR 260. Mr. Sharma, on the other hand, relies upon the judgment in Umesh Shivappa Ambi and others V. Angadi Shekara Basappa and others AIR 1999 SC 1566, to contend to the contrary. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur and others 1995 (1) PLR 260. Mr. Sharma, on the other hand, relies upon the judgment in Umesh Shivappa Ambi and others V. Angadi Shekara Basappa and others AIR 1999 SC 1566, to contend to the contrary. Having heard learned counsel and examining the record of the case, we are of the opinion that an alternative remedy by way of election petition is, indeed, available to the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of this case, he has to be relegated to his alternative statutory remedy. The judgment of this Court in Sher Chand's case (supra) clearly mentions that the writ petition would be competent at the stage when the petitioner might have approached the Court before the election result was declared. It is the positive case of the respondents in the present case that result of the election was declared on 5.11.2003. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment of the Supreme Court will apply. The petitioner, in view of statutory alternative remedy available to him, is relegated to his ordinary remedy. In the facts and circumstances of this case, thus, judgment of this court in Sher Chand's case (supra) would not be applicable. It is the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as relied by learned counsel representing the respondents, that would apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioner, in view of the statutory alternative remedy, is relegated to the said remedy.” The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of election petition, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as being not maintainable at this stage. Petition Dismissed.