JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - Being aggrieved against the manner of conducting election of the Managing Committee of Citizen Urban Co-operative Bank, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the orders whereby election petition filed by him has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner would complain that respondent No.1 has held the election contrary to the mandatory provisions as provided under Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) and the bye-laws of the respondent Bank by unanimously electing 13 Directors from different zones unopposed. This election was held on 25.2.2009. The petitioner being share holder was aggrieved against the manner of conducting this election. He, therefore, filed an election petition on 28.5.2009 under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the entire process of election of the Managing Committee on the ground that the election was contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act. Additional Registrar, without going into the merits, dismissed the election petition on 9.2.2011 on a technical ground of delay in filing the petition and so it was termed as time barred. It is also held that the petitioner had not made it clear as to in which zone he was registered as a Member. After placing reliance on the judgement passed by this Court that one election petition can not be filed to challenge election of all the zones, the petition has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against this order under Section 68 of the Act. The Appellate Authority though has condoned the delay, but has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner would not have any locus to challenge the election of all the zones, he being voter only in one zone. The Appellate Authority has also held that no adverse order can be passed against the Directors as they were not impleaded as party in the election petition or in the appeal. The petitioner accordingly has filed this petition to impugn both the orders passed by the Additional Registrar and the appellate order passed by Special Secretary, Co-operation, Government of Punjab. 4. The petitioner accordingly has filed this petition to impugn both the orders passed by the Additional Registrar and the appellate order passed by Special Secretary, Co-operation, Government of Punjab. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had not challenged the election of a particular Director but had challenged the entire election process being in violation of the statutory and mandatory provisions contained in the Act and hence, in this background, he would have locus to maintain such an election petition to challenge the election of all the 13 zones and that too without impleading the Directors, who have been elected from these different 13 zones. As regards the judgment of this Court in the case of Tejinder Paul Mann Vs. The State of Haryana and others, 1978 PLJ 120 relied by the Appellate Authority, it is urged that the same would not apply to the facts of this case as in this judgement locus-standi to raise objection against the nomination paper of a candidate was the issue and not the final election result as such. The counsel has rather referred to the case of The Basiala Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, Basiala Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Garh Shankar and others, 1973 P.L.J. 597 to urge that where the election dispute relates to entire Managing Committee, it can be referred to Arbitrator by the Registrar. 5. I have not been able to appreciate the line of submissions pursued by learned counsel for the petitioner. If a voter in a one zone is held to have no locus-standi to raise an objection against the nomination paper of a candidate in another zone on the ground that he is not a voter in that particular zone, then certainly he can not be held to have locus to challenge the election of all the candidates elected from different zones, where he is neither a voter nor could ever seek election from the concerned zones. The petitioner’s right to challenge the election would flow from being a voter in that constituency where election is to be held. If a voter registered anywhere is held entitled to have a locus-standi to challenge the election of any candidate elected from any constituency, where he is not a voter, then it would lead to some absurd consequences. The petitioner’s right to challenge the election would flow from being a voter in that constituency where election is to be held. If a voter registered anywhere is held entitled to have a locus-standi to challenge the election of any candidate elected from any constituency, where he is not a voter, then it would lead to some absurd consequences. As an example, it can be noticed here that a voter registered say in constituency in the District of Amritsar, then would be in a position to challenge the election of a candidate elected from different District say Bathinda. That apparently would be stretching the locus too far. 6. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has invoked the remedy of an election petition and has now impugned the order passed by the authorities on the election petition so filed by the petitioner. It would be otherwise also in violation of the principles of natural justice if the petitioner is allowed to maintain such a petition, where he has been adamant not to implead the elected Directors as party. No adverse order to the interest of any individual can be so passed by any Court without putting the person to notice, who is likely to be adversely effected by such an order. He or they can not be condemned unheard without affording opportunity of being heard. The petitioner being a voter could only challenge the election of a Director elected from his zone. If the petitioner is not in any competent position to get elected from any other zone not being a voter, where he is not entitled to either get himself registered as a voter or raise an objection against the inclusion or exclusion of the name of the person from the voters list, he obviously would be lacking in locus to challenge the election from said zone. I am not prepared to read the provisions of the Act in a manner holding locus of the petitioner to challenge this election of all the zones that too through one petition without impleading the persons who are likely to be effected by any adverse order either in the election petition or in this writ petition. 7. I am not prepared to read the provisions of the Act in a manner holding locus of the petitioner to challenge this election of all the zones that too through one petition without impleading the persons who are likely to be effected by any adverse order either in the election petition or in this writ petition. 7. I have also my doubts if the Appellate Authority was justified in condoning the delay on the part of the petitioner to file this election petition but am not going into this issue as I am otherwise of the considered view that the petitioner would not have any locus to challenge the election of all the zones through a single petition and that too without impleading the persons likely to be effected. The reliance by the Appellate Authority on the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and others, [2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) 400 (SC)] : AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2191 to condone the delay would not appear relevant in election petition matter. 8. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction therefore is made out. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.