Judgment 1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings dated 14.02.2014 issued by the third respondent. 2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner is one of the elected Directors of K.Pudukkottai Primary Agricultural Credit Society. On account of the demise of one of the Directors, the post of the President fell vacant and was notified for election on 29.01.2014. The petitioner, the fourth respondent and one Sethuraman filed nominations to the post of the President. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is not qualified for even filing the nomination and in this regard, he had sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 30.01.2014 to conduct an enquiry in the matter. However, the third respondent by the impugned proceedings, dated 14.02.2014, informed that there is no irregularities with regard to conduct of election held on 29.01.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner would contend that there is no bar for the Vice President to contest for the post of President either under the bye-laws of the society or under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act or the rules framed thereunder and the respondents did not consider the petitioner's objection in proper perspective and erroneously passed the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the election of the fourth respondent as President, he has to approach the competent authority under Section 90 of the Act and in this regard reliance also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of K.Radharukmani vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others [2013 (2) CWC 456] . 5. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the petitioner cannot contest for the post, as he is holding the post of Vice President and it restricts him from contesting the election to the post of President of the society. That apart, the allegations made against the Election Officer has also denied. 5. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the petitioner cannot contest for the post, as he is holding the post of Vice President and it restricts him from contesting the election to the post of President of the society. That apart, the allegations made against the Election Officer has also denied. Further, it is submitted that Section 34(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, prescribes only the qualification required for a person to become the member of the Board, i.e., the incumbent should know to read and write Tamil or English or such other language as the Government may notify in this behalf in relation to any particular area. The Act does not prescribe any academic proficiency or skill. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has an effective remedy under Section 90 of the Act. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on records. 7. The objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition is sustainable in view of the decision of this Court in the case of K.Radharukmani (cited supra). If the petitioner is aggrieved as against the election to the post of the President of the Panchayat, he has to approach the authority concerned under Section 90 of the Act and in terms of the proviso to Section 90(1) of the Act, no dispute relating to, or in connection with any election, shall be referred under subsection (1) of Section 90, till the date of declaration of the result of such election and the period of limitation is two months from the date of declaration of the election. 8. In the light of the observation made above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 9. However, It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the petitioner's contention and it is left open to be agitated before the competent forum. The impugned order was passed on 14.02.2014. However, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition on 20.03.2014 and the same was entertained on 21.03.2014 and is pending till date. 10. 9. However, It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the petitioner's contention and it is left open to be agitated before the competent forum. The impugned order was passed on 14.02.2014. However, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition on 20.03.2014 and the same was entertained on 21.03.2014 and is pending till date. 10. In the light of the above, if an application is filed and if any dispute is raised by the petitioner under Section 90 of the Act, then the competent authority may taken into consideration the period of pendency of this Writ Petition for the purpose of computing limitation.