ORDER 1. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. 3. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that petitioner is member of respondent-cooperative society. However, the petitioner was not given possession of the plot. Thereupon, the petitioner raised a dispute under section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The Deputy Registrar vide order dated 30.6.2005 directed the respondent to allot plot to the petitioner subject to availability and in the alternative, to refund the amount which was deposited by the petitioner towards the cost of the plot. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar. The joint Registrar vide order dated 30.10.2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the validity of the aforesaid order before the Tribunal by filing the revision. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.1.2009 disposed by the revision with a direction that the amount deposited by the petitioner towards the cost of the plot should be refunded by the petitioner along with interest @ 6%. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. We have heard the both sides. 5. Admittedly, the Society is under the liquidation, A liquidator has been appointed. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks the relief that a plot which, according to her, is due to her should be transferred by the liquidator on behalf of the society to the writ petitioner. This militates against the basic requirements of liquidation. 6. Normally, when a company or society comes under liquidation, all claims of creditiors of the company or society are required to be filed before the Liquidator. The Liquidator converts all the assets into cash and thereafter distribute the same on pro-rata basis amongst creditors. When a company or society is under an liquidation it is not open to the creditor to state that his claim should be satisfied first. The only difference, if the statute permits, is between secured, unsecured creditors and workman. 7. Learned counsel for the liquidator submits that liquidation proceedings have come to an end and the society in question has dissolved. The only difference, if the statute permits, is between secured, unsecured creditors and workman. 7. Learned counsel for the liquidator submits that liquidation proceedings have come to an end and the society in question has dissolved. In accordance with the liquidation proceedings, the claim of the petitioner was processed and a sum of Rs. 16,577/- is set apart by the liquidator as against the claim of the petitioner, which the liqudator is prepared to pay to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner may collect the same. Since the society has already been dissolved after completion of liquidation proceedings, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 8. It is accordingly dismissed.