JUDGMENT RANJIT SINGH, J. - A Welfare Association formed by residents of Housing Board Colony, 10-A, Gurgaon, has filed this writ petition for quashing of letters issued by respondent No.2, ordering fresh election of the petitioner-Association. The election of respondent No.3 is also put to challenge through the present writ petition. It is stated that election for a term of two years was held on 28.3.2010, in which Bhupinder Singh Yadav was elected as President of the Society. Respondent No.3 made a complaint, when respondent No.2 asked the former President to submit complete election proceedings. The former President accordingly submitted the requisite information on 29.4.2010. Respondent No.2, however, sought some more information and, thus, started going into the validity of election. This is stated to be beyond his jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 has also issued letter for holding fresh election and the petitioner-Association has now challenged the same after serving a legal notice. Grievance is that respondent No.2 is not taking any cognizance or action on complaint and objection being filed by the petitioner-Association. 2. How a private Society formed by residents of a Housing Colony would be in a position to maintain a writ petition about the election dispute could not be explained by the counsel in any manner. In response to this query raised by the Court, what all the counsel could state was that it is a registered Society and hence, respondent No.2 would have no jurisdiction to interfere in the election, which has been validly held. Though, attention of the Court was not drawn to any provisions either of the Society Registration Act, 1860 or of bye-laws, which would govern the election of the Society but in the writ petition, reference has been made to Section 24 of the Society Registration (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act”). This Section appears to govern the dispute regarding election of office bearers. This Section appears to govern the dispute regarding election of office bearers. This Section reads as under:- “Disputes regarding election of office-bearers- (1)The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by atleast one-fourth of the members of a Society registered in Haryana, hear and decide in a summary manner by doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: Provided that the election of an office bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied- (a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such bearer; or (b) That the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or (c) that the result of the election insofar as it concerns to such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the receipt of any vote which is void or by any noncompliance with the provisions of any rules of the society. Explanation:-A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person - (i) induces, or attempts to induce, by fraud, intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat or injury, any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election. (ii) with a view to inducing any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election, offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place or employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person; (iii) abets (within the meaning of the India Penal Code) the doing of any of the acts specified in clauses (i) and (ii); (iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure; (v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or religion; (vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice. Explanation II.-A promise of the individual advantage or profit to a person includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of anyone in whom he is interested. Explanation III-The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society. (2) Where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set-aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call a meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be prescribed over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorized by him in this behalf, and the provisions of the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications. (3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an officer-bearer of the society. (3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an officer-bearer of the society. Explanation-For the purposes of this Section, the expression prescribed authority means an officer of court authorized in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette.” 3. Even if the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are accepted, this Section would clearly show that mechanism to settle the dispute regarding election of the office bearers is provided. There is an authority prescribed under the Act to whom a reference can be made by the Registrar or by atleast 1/4th Members of the Society, who would then hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of election or continuation in office of office bearers of such Society. Even the election of an office bearer can be set-aside by the prescribed authority, if it is satisfied that a corrupt practice has been committed, nomination has been improperly rejected; the result of election in so far as it concern to such office bearer has materially affected by improper acceptance of any nomination etc. Even corrupt practice is also defined in this Section. As per the explanation, the State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision on doubt or dispute in respect of such election. The Registrar is also entitled to call a meeting of a general body of the Society. Thus, a complete procedure is prescribed in the Act to decide the dispute in regard to election of the office bearers. The complete mechanism having been so provided in the Act, the election or a dispute regarding election can certainly not be called in question by invoking writ jurisdiction. 4. Reference here may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851, where it is held that writ is not maintainable to challenge election. In Avtar Singh Hit Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and others, 2006 (8) SCC 487 again it is held that writ is not maintainable to challenge election dispute. Then in Manda Jaganath Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851, where it is held that writ is not maintainable to challenge election. In Avtar Singh Hit Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and others, 2006 (8) SCC 487 again it is held that writ is not maintainable to challenge election dispute. Then in Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and others, JT 2004 (5) SC 8, it is held that in all matters relating to election after announcement of election, there is specific prohibition against any challenge to an election except by way of an election petition. Reference can also be made to the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District, AIR 1952 Supreme Court 64, to observe that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, then remedy provided by that statute alone must be availed of. Since the remedy against the dispute of the association is provided under the Act, that alone has to be availed and the writ petition would not be appropriate remedy to invoke. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition Dismissed.