JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order passed by District Magistrate, Pratapgarh/opposite party no. 4 and appoint the Tehsildar, Sadar, Pratapgarh/opposite party no. 5 as Election Officer for the elections of Chairman, Vice Chairman, Delegates of the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Pratapgarh. Another prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 02.06.2014 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition by which Chairman, Vice Chairman and delegates have been declared elected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases: - (i) Lachman Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Others 1984 UPLBEC 1176, pr. 9. 11 (ii) M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise Kerala & Others (2000) 7 SCC 552 , pr. 12, 13, 14 (iii) Committee of Management, District Cooperative Bank, Deoria & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2005 (4) AWC 3482 , pr. 19, 20, 21, 22 (iv) Milkiyat Singh & Others Vs. Union of India & Others 2008 (9) ADJ 145 (DB); pr. 14 18 (v) Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Others Vs. Ananta Saha & Others (2011) 5 SCC 142 , pr. 32, 33 (vi) Dr. Smt. Madhurima Dixit Vs. State of U.P. & Others (2013) 3 UPLBEC 2245 , pr. 44 (vii) Abhai Kumar Vs. Cooperative Tribunal & Others 1996 (14) LCD 396 , pr. 13, 14, 15, 16. 4. Attention has been invited to earlier judgement of Division Bench of this Court dated 29.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 759 of 2013 (Laxmi Kant Dwived Vs. State of U.P. & Others). While dismissing the writ petition the Division Bench has made the following observations : - "......We do not find any substance in the contention of Shri L.P. Mishra that an election on such grounds can be challenged directly by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The judgment of Supreme Court in K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan (1999) 4 SCC 526 and a judgment of this Court in Vishwa Bandhu Gupta vs. Returning Officer 1990 (Vol.VIII) LCD 553 are entirely off the mark. The judgment of Supreme Court in K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan (1999) 4 SCC 526 and a judgment of this Court in Vishwa Bandhu Gupta vs. Returning Officer 1990 (Vol.VIII) LCD 553 are entirely off the mark. In K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan (supra) the election set up by a person impersonating himself for another person was set aside in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Supreme Court upheld the judgement. In Vishwa Bandhu Gupta vs. Returning Officer (supra) the election to the office of Chairman of a Municipal Board was rejected to facilitate free, fair and proper election in accordance with the law. In the present case the issues raised do not form any exception. Rule 444-C provides for challenging the elections by arbitration or otherwise on various grounds including corrupt practice, bribery, undue influence, improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination or by improper reception, refusal or rejection of voters, or by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or the bye laws of the society. The petitioners can always challenge the elections after the results are declared on any of the grounds. We are of the view that the grounds raised in these writ petitions may succeed, if they are so established, under Rule 444-C (1) (b) (ii) of the Rules of 1968. The dispute under sub-rule (2), however, has to be referred by the aggrieved party within 45 days of the declaration of the result. This limitation is not subject to any relaxation or the applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act. The legislature has consciously provided the limitation of only 45 days to bring in certainty to the affairs in the functioning of the Cooperative Societies. We also do not find any substance in the contention that this Court should have allowed the instalments to be fixed for the defaulters PACS in payment of dues to the bank to qualify them for voting. Where the Rules specifically provide that defaulter PACS are not entitled to vote, the Courts do not ordinarily, until any exceptional circumstances are shown, provide for payment of defaulted amount in instalments and make them eligible for voting. For the aforesaid reasons all the writ petitions are dismissed. The result of the elections withhold since January, 2013 shall be announced forthwith. For the aforesaid reasons all the writ petitions are dismissed. The result of the elections withhold since January, 2013 shall be announced forthwith. Any person aggrieved by the result may file an election petition in accordance with the law for deciding the questions except those, which have been considered and decided by us in this judgement. The election petitions will be entertained subject to the limitation prescribed under the Act and the Rule for filing such petition. There shall be no orders to cost." 5. From the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court it is reflected that their Lordships were of the opinion that the petitioner can challenge the election after declaration of result. In pursuance of the provision contained under Rule 444-C (1) (b) (ii) of the Rules of 1968. The Division Bench held that any illegality or irregularity may be subject matter of petition under Rule 444-C of the rules framed for the purpose which is binding on the coordinate bench and no observation may be made or decision can be taken by this Bench against the finding recorded by earlier Division Bench, whereby opinion has been expressed that challenge to election can be made only through Election Petition under Rule 444-C. 6. Dr. L.P. Mishra while assailing the impugned order has argued that the earlier judgement co-relates to the election of delegates of all the members of the Committee of Management. It does not relate to election of Chairman and Vice Chairman, which is subject matter in the present writ petition. It has been further submitted that District Magistrate has been conferred power to work as Election Officer and whereas in the present case the District Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction with regard to appointment of Chairman and Vice Chairman. 7. Shri (Dr.) L.P. Mishra has further submitted that under Rule 444-C it is the District Magistrate who has been conferred power to work as Election Officer, but constitutional amendment provides that it is for the State Commission to look and conduct the election, accordingly the election cannot be held by District Magistrate. It is further submitted that this question has not been raised before the Coordinate Bench (supra). 8. Argument advanced by Dr. L.P. Mishra seems to be misconceived. Petition dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court admittedly it relates to election of delegates of the same Committee of Management. It is further submitted that this question has not been raised before the Coordinate Bench (supra). 8. Argument advanced by Dr. L.P. Mishra seems to be misconceived. Petition dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court admittedly it relates to election of delegates of the same Committee of Management. By the impugned order dated 2.6.2014 (Annexure-1) a prayer has been made for quashing of the declaration of result of the post of Chairman, Vice Chairman and delegates. Accordingly, earlier judgement of Coordinate Bench is binding. Question of law which has been settled by Coordinate Bench between the same parties prima facie seems to be not open in second writ petition on another ground. Option is open to petitioner in view of finding recorded and observation made in earlier judgement and order dated 29.05.2014 to prefer election petition where all these issues may be raised and be adjudicated. 9. In view of above, writ petition seems to be not maintainable, lacks of merit, dismissed.