JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member (Judicial) This appeal has been filed by the appellants who have averred in the appeal that the appellants are respectable members of the Sainik Cooperative House Building Society. They act as watching dogs to see that society functions within domain of law and rules and bye-laws governing society. 2. It has further been averred that respondent no 2 in order to constitute managing committee, respondent no. 5 issued notification on 18-10-2014 for holding the elections. 3. That the respondent no. 3 in order to scrutinize the application for nomination of candidates fixed the date on 24-11-2004 and the appellant based upon the information received by them under Right to Information Act dated 27-03-2014 objected the nomination application of respondent no 6 as one of the contesting candidate on account of his ineligibility and disqualification under bye-law no 5 and 24 being not an ex-service man but the said respondent illegally accepted the nomination application of respondent no 6. and in spite of the facts that objection was taken in black and white on the basis of information received, the respondent no 3 allowed the respondent no 6 to contest the election who was illegally notified as one of the director/ member to managing committee of Society vide notification dated 2.12.2014. 4. That the appellants represented to the respondents with their grievances and cause but the respondents remained silent. The appellants then filed an arbitration under section 70(2)(c) and section 72 of the Cooperative Societies Act along with the application for interim relief but no relief was granted by the respondent no. 4 who continued posting the matter repeatedly forcing the appellant to file an appeal on account of non grant of stay, interim relief and the tribunal directed the Registrar Cooperative Societies to dispose of the interim application which dismissed the same vide order dated 21-05-2015. 5. That no. 4 has treated the arbitration petition of appellant no. 1 and 2 as election petition under rule 16(2) of J&K Cooperative Society Act in spite of being vehemently opposed in this behalf has not to treat arbitration petition as election petition for the reasons that any grievance of the appellants pertains to illegal acceptance of nomination application of respondent no. 4 has treated the arbitration petition of appellant no. 1 and 2 as election petition under rule 16(2) of J&K Cooperative Society Act in spite of being vehemently opposed in this behalf has not to treat arbitration petition as election petition for the reasons that any grievance of the appellants pertains to illegal acceptance of nomination application of respondent no. 6 being in eligible as not being an ex-serviceman and the objection have not been raised to the methodology of holding election illegally to managing committee or to the duplication of ballot papers bogus voting or stealing of ballot box or missing of symbols of candidates. 6. The court observed that since the petition has not been filed within 30 days as stated in rule 16 and dismissed the interim application vide order dated 21-05-2015. Since the order in arbitration petition as election petition was illegal, so the appellant filed writ petition OWP No. 1139/2015 titled Kirpal Singh v. State and others which was disposed off vide order 21-08-2015 with the direction to the tribunal to decide the appeal within 2 months after considering all the aspects of the case taken before registrar into consideration. 7. A prayer has been made that appeal be accepted and order under appeal be set aside. 8. During arguments the appellant has reiterating the averments in the appeal contended that the respondent no. 6 is not the ex-serviceman as required for contesting the election of the society as only a member can contest the election and the appellant not fulfilling the fundamental requirement was ineligible to become the member of society and consequently to be elected or notified as one of the directors of board of directors. That the same has given rise to a dispute inter se the members of society and society itself which gave them right to seek the relief under arbitration under section 70(l)(b) and section 70(ii)(c)(d) read with section 72 and bye-law no 49 of J&K Cooperative House Building Society. 9. He has further submitted that since the Hon'ble High Court passed the order on 21-08-2015 when the petition was filed and the respondent was already on caveat disposing off the petition on the same day, the copy of the order was issued to the appellant on 8-09-2015 in spite of application for issuance of certified copy of order as the order could not be processed till 7-09-2015. 10. 10. He has also urged that this is the dispute under rule-18(g) and not under rule-21 which prescribes the methodology of holding elections and a dispute under the same shall be dealt with under rule-16 to take the same as election petition and not as arbitration petition. 11. He has further argued that court should take liberal approach in condoning the period of limitation and citing an AIR 2015(2) Supreme Court 1656 that court in view of larger public interest should take a lenient view in such situation and condone the delay and decide the cause on merits. 12. He has relied on Army Rule-13 stating that respondent no 6 is debarred by operation of rule-13 and object of Act is that ineligible person should not get elected. 13. He has nowhere challenged the methodology of elections and submitted that the appeal was competent under section 157 and 158 of the Cooperative Society Act. 14. He has also submitted that this tribunal has got power to decide the appeal on merits and even if this tribunal holds that appeal is not maintainable and Court can exercise powers under section 70(2) of the act and treat the appeal as revision and grant relief to the appellants in that case. 15. On the order hand counsel for the respondent, Mr. Aseem Sawhney Advocate associating advocate with Mr. A.K. Sawhney Advocate has argued that the appeal is not maintainable at all. The appeal has been filed by 5 appellants when originally only 2 were before Registrar. How the appellants have swelled to 5 is not explained. He has also argued that the appellant has arrayed new parties and persons as appellants and respondents in the case. 16. That the format of the appeal is defective and alien of concept to appeal filing system. Filing of petition has been manipulated and there is non-application of mind while framing the appeal and appeal is bad for misjoinder of parties. 17. He has also argued that the appellant has raised a dispute which pertains to the election of respondent no. 6 and the dispute could be raised only within the period of limitation. The appellant had not come to the court within the limitation period. 18. 17. He has also argued that the appellant has raised a dispute which pertains to the election of respondent no. 6 and the dispute could be raised only within the period of limitation. The appellant had not come to the court within the limitation period. 18. Going through the provision of Cooperative societies Act, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that section 157, 158 and 159 deal with the appeals under Cooperative society Act but the appeal has to be preferred before tribunal. 19. He has further stated that J&K special tribunal has got no jurisdiction to decide an appeal under Cooperative Societies Act and tribunal has got only revisional jurisdiction. Citing the judgement of this court Danish Gupta v. Citizen cooperative bank 2004 (1) JKJ 1 [Tri], lie has argued that tribunal has held that appeal is not entertain able before the tribunal under appellate jurisdiction, and while exercising the revision the tribunal cannot go the facts of the case and return the findings after apprising the evidence. 20. He has further submitted that an OWP-519-2015 titled Narinder Singh v. State is pending disposal before Hon'ble High Court of J&K in which a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the state to constitute a competent cooperative tribunal as envisaged under section 1.57 of Cooperative Society Act and rule 62 and 63 of Cooperative Society rules 2001 has been made for the purpose. He has submitted in his written objections/arguments that the appellant has not objected when the electoral rules were being prepared. 21. Refuting the appellant's stand, he has further argued that it is wrong as say that respondent, no 6 is not an ex-serviceman. It is not necessary that in order to be an ex-serviceman a person should have served in the army for 15 years to qualify for benefits for being a pensionable ex serviceman. He has further stated that respondent was elected as one of the directors of Board of Directors from 1999 to 2002, 2002 to 2008, 2008-2012 and has also now been elected. He has rendered duties as an Army Personnel for about 4 years and is not disqualified. Citing J&K Reservation Act and rule, he had submitted that requirement of law is that a person should have served in the army irrespective of period of service. 22. He has rendered duties as an Army Personnel for about 4 years and is not disqualified. Citing J&K Reservation Act and rule, he had submitted that requirement of law is that a person should have served in the army irrespective of period of service. 22. The appellant is barred by estoppel and waiver as the appellant has legitimate expectation and legitimate rights to become director and no order under law can be passed at interim stage without deciding the main petition/resolution, restraining the respondent no. 6 from functioning as an elected authority. 23. He has further argued that appellant's stand is not specific. He is sailing on 2 boats sometimes under section 158 to 160 of Cooperative Societies Act and sometime on 60-72 for invoking revisional jurisdiction of this tribunal. 24. He has further argued that appellants have no locus and they are not the aggrieved party. They have not come out of the embargos of the statue prescribing limitation for filing election petition before the respondent as well as before this court and law has to come to the rescue of vigilant not with indolent. 25. He has further stated that only weapon and triumph card in their hands is the information they received under RIT Act. In absence of specific definition the same is not applicable. 26. Bye-laws of the Cooperative society provide for the explanation of the terms as person to be ex-serviceman for being eligible to be a member. 27. Arguing on the lack of locus standi of the petitioners to agitate the election of respondent No. 6, Counsel for the respondent has cited a number of authorities Charal Sahu v. KR Narayanan decided on 20/11/1997, All India Students Association decided on 26th of August 2014, AIR 2004 Kant 17, Prakasho v. Boli Devi decided on 28th of May 2012 by Punjab and Haryana High Court AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1566 contending that the Law laid in all those authorities is that the person who has contested the elections cannot come to the court to declare the same as null and void and any person who has not participated in the election process is to be equated as a person sitting on the shore of the sea attempting to measure the depth of the sea without diving in its deep waters. 28. 28. He has also submitted that the petitioners are neither aggrieved nor they represent the interests of the society and they have no right to challenge validly held elections or nomination of respondent. 29. He has further argued that when appeal is not maintainable and the same is stated as revision within under section 70, all the respondents aggrieved have a right to be heard who should be first summoned in the matter to be decided. 30. He has further argued that on the principles of law laid down in DTC v. Delhi Mazdoor Congress enquiry is required to be conducted where rule of audi alteram partem needs to be followed. 31. Referring to rule-16 chapter-iv of rules framed under Cooperative society act, the respondents has argued that appellant has no case and the same should be dismissed as being not maintainable. 32. Rebutting the respondents contention and reiterating his stand taken by him before this court, he has submitted that under rule 18-g and 21-(a) the relief merits to be granted to him. 33. He has further argued that under J&K Special Tribunal Act 1988 and rules made there under this Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to decide the cause of the appellant who represent interest of about 4500 members of society. He has further argued that any judgement of this Tribunal is not binding as this Tribunal is not a Court of record and the rules framed under the Act cannot be beyond the provision of the Act and if these are so they cannot be invoked being ultra-vires. He has further argued that this Tribunal has to confine its findings to Army Act and rules and not otherwise. Counsel for the appellant has supported his contentions by citing 2003 (1) JKJ 621 [Tri], Goverdhan Singh Jamwal v. B.S. Manhas and Ors. 34. In the end he prayed that appeal be accepted, the order under appeal be set aside and the respondent no. 6 be restrained from functioning as Director of the Society. 35. Heard the parties and also perused the material on file. 36. 34. In the end he prayed that appeal be accepted, the order under appeal be set aside and the respondent no. 6 be restrained from functioning as Director of the Society. 35. Heard the parties and also perused the material on file. 36. Since the respondent's counsel has stated that while interpreting the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act u/s 70, revision is not barred, as such the questions as to whether the appeal is competent before this Tribunal or not or as to whether this Tribunal can exercise the powers as Co-operative Tribunal are not determining factors for disposal of this petition which lose their significance in view of the maintainability of revision petition. Otherwise all these questions are left open in view of pendency of writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court where the same points have been urged which are to the effect that so far no tribunal under Cooperative Society Act with requisite qualifications as per the Co-operative Societies rules has been constituted and direction has been sought in the matter, in this background. 37. The Tribunal therefore restrains itself from expressing any opinion in view of the matter being sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court where such issues are involved. 38. The objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal under the Act are also therefore not required to be touched. 39. I have gone through the authority 2003 (1) JKJ 621 [Tri] in this the question was whether the petitioner at who was elected as chairman of J&K ex-servicemen cooperative store Ltd, a cooperative society by the board of directors in the officiating capacity beyond the specific periods and the Registrar by his order dated 3-8-2002 had allowed both the petitions of the respondents and ordered that the petitioner in the revision before the tribunal shall cease to hold office of the chairman with immediate effect. 40. This order had been challenged and the question was raised as to whether the tribunal had got the jurisdiction and power to refer the case to the Honourable High Court under section 70 of J&K Cooperative Societies Act for declaring the rules as ultra vires because of excessive delegation. 41. 40. This order had been challenged and the question was raised as to whether the tribunal had got the jurisdiction and power to refer the case to the Honourable High Court under section 70 of J&K Cooperative Societies Act for declaring the rules as ultra vires because of excessive delegation. 41. The tribunal has dismissed the revision petition holding that appointment of the petitioner as chairman of the governing body of the society was illegal and there was no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Registrar and a revision petition was dismissed. 42. In the instant case Interpretation of the rules pertaining to questions of reference on question of law whether this tribunal can act as Cooperative Tribunal finally cannot come on the subject as already stated the matter being sub-judice before the Honourable High Court and the main petition relating to the dispute raised before the Registrar has not been finally disposed of. 43. But the import and purport of section 3 of J&K Special Tribunals Act 1988 and Section-70 of the cooperative Societies Act does not bar the invocation of revisional powers by this Tribunal which has got powers to exercise revision as the Govt, would do under the Act. 44. The questions regarding the applicability of appellate provisions under section 158 read with relevant rules can however, be decided for prima-facie purposes only to see as whether this case warrants interference at this stage on the rejection of the prayers for interim relief by the Registrar for restraining respondent no; 6 from discharging the duties as one of the Directors of the Board. 45. It may be mentioned that the questions as to whether this petition challenging the nomination of petitioners as Director is an election petition or an arbitration petition is also decided herein below for the purpose of disposal of the dispute in appeal, besides the provisions pertaining to limitation provided under the Act. 46. The petitioners has contended that since the respondent no. 6 is not an ex-serviceman, therefore he could not be a member of an House building Cooperative Society being ineligible to contest the election. 47. His case is that he had represented before the election authority but his objection was not decided which has given rise to dispute between the members and the respondent no. 6 and also the Cooperative Society and the petitioners. 48. 47. His case is that he had represented before the election authority but his objection was not decided which has given rise to dispute between the members and the respondent no. 6 and also the Cooperative Society and the petitioners. 48. This dispute, he argues that the same is to be decided not as an election dispute but as an arbitration petition and dispute referable to under section 70 of the Cooperative Society Act. 49. Though the petitioners had stated that he has not raised the questions for objection for regarding ballot paper, bogus voting or other such disputes but the objection which he has raised pertains to the eligibility or ineligibility of the respondent No. 6 to the post of Director in elections of the society. 50. A Division Bench in T.S. Patel v. joint Registrar cooperative societies 2008 ILR Ker 497 has held "Presumption of election law relating to Representation of People's Act are applicable to the Cooperative Societies and Registrar can declare a candidate elected". 51. It is open to arbitrator to rely on as far as possible on a large number of judicial precedents under election law and decide disputes relating to elections on the principles of justice equity and good conscience. 52. The petitioner has submitted that his objection is to the nomination of the ineligible candidate the respondent No. 6. 53. Improper acceptance of nomination or rejection of nomination also constitutes an election dispute as envisaged under Section 100(a) of the Representation of Peoples Act. 54. When the precedents of election decisions can also govern the elections under cooperative Societies Act, There is no reason as to why improper acceptance of nomination of the respondent No. 6 as urged by the petitioners should not be construed as an election dispute. 55. Thus any such objection pertaining to the eligibility of the candidate or improper acceptance of nomination of the candidate contesting election, by the returning officer or straightway going for completing the process of elections without deciding the objection raised is definitely an election dispute and has to be decided as such under the Cooperative Societies Act. 56. So far as provisions of Cooperative Societies Act pertaining to election dispute are concerned the same are reproduced as under; Chapter IV Management of cooperative societies 26. Final authority in cooperative Society. The final authority in a cooperative society shall vest in general body of members. 56. So far as provisions of Cooperative Societies Act pertaining to election dispute are concerned the same are reproduced as under; Chapter IV Management of cooperative societies 26. Final authority in cooperative Society. The final authority in a cooperative society shall vest in general body of members. Provided that where the bylaws of cooperative Society provide far the constitution of the smaller body consisting of delegates of members of the society elected in accordance with such bylaws, the smaller body shall exercise such powers of general body as may be prescribed for as may be specified in bylaws of the society; Provided further that nothing in this section shall affect any powers conferred on a committee or any officer of a cooperative society by the rules or by laws. 27. Annual general meeting (a) approval of the programme of the activities of the society prepared by the committee for the ensuing year; (b) election, if any in the described manner of the members of the committee, other than nominated members; (c) .............. 28. Special general meeting 29. Election an nomination of members of committees......... 29-A. bar to election, nomination and continuance as member of committees...... 29-B. Qualification for membership of the committee's Similarly rules pertaining to election with relevant extracts are reproduced as under. Rule 16. Election Of Members Of Committee (1) The election of members of committee/Board of any cooperative Society having jurisdiction within the District, shall be held on such date as may be specified by the Registrar and shall be conducted under the control of Assistant Commissioner Revenue within whose jurisdiction registered society of the cooperative society is situated by such returning officer and other officers as may be appointed by him/ her in this behalf. (2) The election of the members of the committee/Board of any cooperative society having jurisdiction in two or more Districts, shall be held on such dates as may be specified by the Registrar and shall be conducted under the control of Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the Registered office of the cooperative society is situated.................. (3) The voting at elections held under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall be by secret ballot. (4) No election shall be called in question except by election petition within the provisions of the Act. (3) The voting at elections held under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall be by secret ballot. (4) No election shall be called in question except by election petition within the provisions of the Act. (5) Any dispute arising of an election held under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall be referred for decision to the Registrar who shall decide it himself. (6) the reference of the dispute under sub-rule (5) may be made by any aggrieved party by submitting an election petition to the Registrar, within 30 days from the date of declaration are the result of election. (7) The decision of the Registrar shall be final. (8) the election of representatives of the society or a higher level society shall be made by a committee of the Society by an majority vote in the manner prescribed. In case of the tie, chairman shall have the casting vote 17. Election of members of committee by general body (1) co-operative Society made for the purposes of election of members latest committee divide its membership and to different groups on a territorial or any other basis. (1) (2) the bylaws of such a society may specify the number proportion of the members of the committee who may be elected to represent each such group on the committee and may specify further that such representativeness may be elected: - (a) by all the members of society; or (b) by only that article are groups of members of the society to which representatives belong. 18.(a) the registrar shall satisfy and communicate to the Asst Commissioner in the case of societies to which the provision is sub-rule(1) for role 16 apply or to the Deputy Commissioner in the case of societies mentioned in sub rule to 4 rule 16, as the case may be, the date on which the election is off the member subcommittee/board of the cooperative Society is to be held at least two months in advance. (b) the Asstt. Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be shall, on receipt of information under clause (a) is fix that time and place for holding the election on that date specified by the registrar and also appoint the returning officer and other officers to assist the returning officer in conducting the elections. (b) the Asstt. Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be shall, on receipt of information under clause (a) is fix that time and place for holding the election on that date specified by the registrar and also appoint the returning officer and other officers to assist the returning officer in conducting the elections. (c) that Deputy Commissioner/Asst Commissioner, revenue, shall get ballot papers printed at the expenses of the concerned cooperative Society and cause them to be placed in the custody of the returning officer. (d) on the recreation of the Deputy Commissioner/Asstt. Commissioner, the committee/board or the administrators in office, as the case may be, Shell, after giving 15 days clear notice to the members, call the general body meeting of the cooperative society or society is on the date specified by the registrar and at the time and place fixed by Deputy Commissioner/Asst Commissioner. (e) the notice of general meeting shall be sent to the members by any of the following modes namely: - (i) by post under certificate of posting; (ii) by circulation among members; (iii) notice of the general meeting and the list of shareholders eligible to vote shall also be fixed on the notice board of the society or the branches of the society, if any. (f) the Deputy Commissioner/Asstt. Commissioner shall by order specify: - (i) the number of vacancies to be filled up by election; (ii) the area of constituency, if any, from which the members are to be elected; (iii) on the date on which, the place at which and the hours between the polling will take place; and (iv) the date, time and place at which the nomination papers will be received, the last date of filing of nomination papers, the date and time place off security of nomination papers and lasted it off withdrawal of candidature. (ff) the committee or the administrative office shall furnish to the returning officer who are in eligible for being the re-elected or reappointed as officers of society under sub rule(l) (c) of rule25 at least 10 days before the date fixed for the election. (ff) the committee or the administrative office shall furnish to the returning officer who are in eligible for being the re-elected or reappointed as officers of society under sub rule(l) (c) of rule25 at least 10 days before the date fixed for the election. (fff) on receipt of the in formation under server rule ff if the returning officer find this that the number of in eligible officers exceeds half the total number of officers of the society, he shall determine by lots, in the presence of the officers of the society or the authorised representatives, at least one week before the date fixed for election that who among best in eligible officers should be debarred from seeking re-election and the appointment so that the total number off in eligible officers does not exceed off the total number of answers of the society. (ffff) for drying lots as provided in some role fff a closed container with an opening through which only an arm can pass shall be used home and address off each in eligible officer shall be written by the returning officer, in presence of the officers off the society, or the authorised representative, on separate piece of paper of the same size and colour. Please shall be folded into equal size in a manner that the name written on it does not remain visible and shall be proper in the container one by one by the returning officer. The container of them shall be shaken in a way that cheats in it yet intermingled. Thereafter, the returning officer shall drop out such number of chips one after another, from the container in which makes the number equal to half the total number off the officers of the society. Name is of the officers so drawn out shall be written on a sheet of paper by returning officer and they shall be declared in eligible for seeking very election or re-appointment as officers of the society, The returning officer will send the list off in eligible candidates to the society on the same day. Name is of the officers so drawn out shall be written on a sheet of paper by returning officer and they shall be declared in eligible for seeking very election or re-appointment as officers of the society, The returning officer will send the list off in eligible candidates to the society on the same day. (g) the nomination of the candidates for election shall be made in form a, the returning officer shall decide the objections, if any, which may be made at the time of any nomination after making such summary enquiry as he thinks necessary and announce the names or name of the eligible candidate or candidate's so nominated on the same day. In the case of rejection of nomination paper; returning officer; shall record the reasons. (h) if for any area or constituency for which election is to be held, the number of candidates in respect of which valid nominations have been made does not exceed the number of candidates or to the elected for the area or cost show and see, the candidates for whom valid nominations have been made shall be deemed to have elected far the area or, constituency as the case may be and the returning officer shall make a declaration to that effect. (i) if the number of candidates for the area or constituency exceeds the number of candidates to be elected the returning officer shall arrange for the tailing a poll. (j) the ballot paper shall contain the name is of the candidates and the seal of the society. (k) the member shall make the mark on the ballot paper issued to him against the name or names of the candidates for whom he desires to vote and put the ballot paper in the ballot box. (1) if, owing to blindness or other physical infirmity or illiteracy, and member is unable to mark the ballot paper, the returning officer shall ascertain from the candidate or candidates in whose favour he desires to vote and make the mark on his behalf on the ballot paper, (m) as soon as all the members doesn't have recorded their votes, the returning officer shall count the votes and announce the results off election with the number of votes secured by each. (n) of ballot paper shall be elected: - (i) ........... (ii) .......... (iii) .........the authority competent to reject ballot paper shall be returning officer. (n) of ballot paper shall be elected: - (i) ........... (ii) .......... (iii) .........the authority competent to reject ballot paper shall be returning officer. (o) the proceedings of the meeting with the results of election shall be recorded in the minutes book of the society and attested by the returning officer. (p) the returning officer shall take a study of the ballot papers and shall preserve them for three months from the date of the poll. The ballot papers and other records relating to the election shall be secured in a container which shall be affixed with a seal of the returning officer and of the candidates who desire to fix their seal. The ballot papers shall be destroyed after the sad period of three months, if no dispute relating to or in connection in these with referred to the deputy commissioner of the district 19. Postponement of elections in cases of emergencies (a) ........... (b) ........... 20. Election expenses (a) .......... (b) ........... (c)........................ 21.(a) notwithstanding anything contained in on the bylaw off any society the election of members of the committee of every primary agriculture Society shall be held after every three years in the manner indicated therein after; provided that the election of members of the committee of such primary societies whose election has already become due on the date of coming into force of this rule shall be conducted within three months of the said date in accordance with the provisions of this rule. (b)............ (c)............. (d)........... the notice shall be in the form the appended to these rules and shall specify (i) ............. (ii) ............ (iii) ........... (iv) ............ (v) ............ (vi) ............ (vii) ........... (e).............. (f).............. (g)............. (h). (i) an nomination paper shall be rejected and the person applying for nomination is in eligible for being elected as a member of the committee under the provisions of the act or the rules made thereunder or the bylaws of the society, notwithstanding that no objection is taken to his nomination by anyone. (j).............. (k)................ (1).............. (m)................ (n) formatters not specifically mentioned in this rule the provisions of collages(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)(m)(n)(P) of rule 18 shall mutatis mutandis apply. (o)................ (p).............. (j).............. (k)................ (1).............. (m)................ (n) formatters not specifically mentioned in this rule the provisions of collages(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)(m)(n)(P) of rule 18 shall mutatis mutandis apply. (o)................ (p).............. (q) any dispute arising out in connection with the election is held under this rule shall be disposed of in the manner laid down for the determination of the disputes arising out of or pertaining to election s under rule 16 of the Co-operative Societies Rules 2001. (22) procedure for elections office presented use of the society to the other society or higher level society 23. Procedure for filling up vacancy in the board/committee of the cooperative Society... 24. Remuneration payable to new committee are administrator. 25. Disqualification for membership/appointment/election committee ...... ........ (u) he has not fulfilled all the obligations laid down in the Act, Rules and Bye laws. 57. The aforementioned relevant provisions and rules provide a complete grievance redressal machinery for resolution of any dispute or grievance pertaining to elections and the same has to be dealt accordingly. 58. The perusal of the afore mentioned provisions and rules shows that the dispute has to be decided as an election dispute and the same can be decided by the Registrar. 59. No such timely redressal is shown to have been sought in the case. 60. Since the petitioners has submitted that he has not been heard either by the returning Officer or by the Registrar, therefore, it will be proper to decide the dispute by condoning the period of limitation on the authorities of the Apex Court with basic authority AIR 1987 AIR SC page 1353 titled Mst. Khatji v. Collector District Anantnag where it has been held that cause should be decided in merits in order to do substantial justice. 61. Thus for just decision of the case Justice demands that petition should be decided on merits. 62. Since the revisional powers can exercised at any stage by the Tribunal even by calling record from the Registrar as Govt, is empowered to do, therefore the appeal is treated as revision and the appellant as petitioner in the list before this Tribunal. 63. Now the question is as to whether there is an illegality or impropriety in the case in the order passed by the Registrar. 64. 63. Now the question is as to whether there is an illegality or impropriety in the case in the order passed by the Registrar. 64. The revisional court can interfere at any stage when there is any illegality impropriety or perversity in the order or there is wrong or failure to exercise jurisdiction by the Registrar. 65. The whole thrust of the arguments petitioner in respect of whether the cause agitated before the court comes within the ambit of election dispute for which redressal can be sought by an election petition or the matter pertains to dispute touching constitution and management of the society for which arbitration petition is remedy. 66. The petitioners case is that the respondent no; 6 is not an Ex-serviceman defined under the Army Act. So far as the provisions of bye laws and rules defining ex-serviceman or concerned, the same are reproduced in succeeding paras for having review of the same. 67. Counsel for the appellant has stated that the respondent is not an ex serviceman and he was disqualified from holding election. He has based his contention on the information sought by him under the RIT Act according to which he is not an ex serviceman. 68. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the respondent does not want to take any benefit as an ex serviceman the argument on which the appellants rely. 69. He has submitted that as per J&K Reservation Act the person who has rendered service in the army in the past is an ex serviceman which is also the dictionary meaning which the term carries. 70. Under Army Act, ex serviceman is defined as (b) As the status of ESM is concerned-------------- 1. The eligibility of the retired Defence personal to the status of Ex-serviceman is governed by the definition as laid down by department of personal training. The definition has undergone changes from time to time. 70. Under Army Act, ex serviceman is defined as (b) As the status of ESM is concerned-------------- 1. The eligibility of the retired Defence personal to the status of Ex-serviceman is governed by the definition as laid down by department of personal training. The definition has undergone changes from time to time. The following is broad categorisation; (a) Those released before 01 July, 1968--------------- (b) Those released on or after July 68 before 01 July 79--------------- (c) Those released on or after July 68 before 01 July 87--------------- (i)-------------- (ii)------------- (iii)------------ (iv)----------- (a) at his own request after completing five years service in the Armed Forces of the Union Or (b) after serving for a continuous period of six months after attestation, otherwise than at his own request or by way of dismissal or discharge on account of mis-conduct or inefficiency or has been transferred to the reserve pending such release; shall also be deemed to be an ex-serviceman for this clause". 71. The ex-serviceman under Reservation Act is a person who has rendered service in the army in the past. Since the cause is being decided on merits for the purpose of doing substantial justice. Therefore it will proper to see and resolve the controversy by viewing the same from the following two points. (i) whether the Respondent no; 6 was ineligible as being not an ex serviceman (ii) whether improper acceptance of his nomination leading to arbitrable dispute disqualifies him from acting as Director and in case it is so whether restraint order can be passed restraining him from discharging the function as director of Board of Directors. 72. As regards the first point there are conflicting views as to who is the person who should be conferred the status of ex serviceman for the purpose of respondent society. 73. If we go to the definition laid down by the department of personnel and training then the petitioners' stand is correct and the respondent no.6 is ineligible as per RTI information got by the petitioner who does not qualify to be an ex serviceman in order to be member of the society and consequently not eligible to be the director and if we go to the dictionary meaning and that under J&K Reservation Act then the respondents stand is correct. 74. Besides, it is also submitted that under amended bye laws of the society, the respondent no. 74. Besides, it is also submitted that under amended bye laws of the society, the respondent no. 5 the respondent no.6 is not disqualified. 75. A House building society is meant for the ex serviceman and though it can not be said that the members of association cannot espouse the cause of those who have rendered the service in army for shorter but significant period than the period required for qualifying to earn pension from the army. Or a person who has served in the army for such a significant period whether deserves the benefits that his cause should also be espoused, whether he being aggrieved himself, being a person who had render 4 and half years service in army espousing the causes of such like persons by being the director of Board of Directors who himself is in the category of such persons having representative character, it is in this context that byelaws or the amendment to the bye laws and other provisions and rules of the Act are to be interpreted. 76. Question arises as to whether this tribunal in this appeal in absence of specific details of service particulars and evidence can give a conclusive finding on the status of the respondent no.6 and when there are different views on it. 77. The law in this context is that court has to resort to the golden rule of interpretation in order to encompass the legislative object of the Act or law. 78. It can however be said that for prima facie purposes this Court has to give the recognition to the literal definition of ex-serviceman but the main controversy has to be resolved by the Registrar before whom the main lis is pending where the resp. No. 6 deserves to be given the opportunity to contest the averments of the petitioners and his contentions that the information received by the petitioners from appropriate source is true and correct definition for the purpose. 79. The Registrar has not for the time being deemed it proper to deny and deprive the respondent No. 6 from discharging the functions as board of Directors. 80. Thus it can be stated that after taking evidence and giving opportunity of being heard the Registrar is competent to declare as to whether the respondent no.6 is the ex-serviceman who should be given the membership under J&K Cooperative Societies Act. 81. 80. Thus it can be stated that after taking evidence and giving opportunity of being heard the Registrar is competent to declare as to whether the respondent no.6 is the ex-serviceman who should be given the membership under J&K Cooperative Societies Act. 81. Now assuming for a while that the definition of department of personnel management is adopted for prima facie purposes and the consequent result is that the returning officer has improperly accepted the nomination, then what order should be passed by this tribunal at this stage. 82. The second point has been discussed in a catena of authorities by the courts and Tribunals in a number of election petitions involving such election disputes. 83. The failure to decide the petitioners objection has prima facie resulted into wrong or improper acceptance of the nomination. 84. There is difference of decisions in cases of improper acceptance of nomination and rejection of nomination. 85. In the case of acceptance of nomination, when alleged to be the wrongful acceptance if the election is thereafter held, the elected candidate may not be restrained to function. 86. Rejection or nomination is more seriously taken than the acceptance of nomination. Since the rejection of nomination deprives the right to contest. 87. In 1971 GLR 138 it was held that in election law approach of court should be to see the eligibility or qualification of candidate and to see the will of the people is not polluted by the corrupt practise. 88. What is essential is purity and eligibility. Secondly election involves a lot of expenditure of public revenue and resulting into great inconvenience and loss of public time. In election trial if procedural regularity does not touch purity and eligibility then there is provisional finality in matters pertaining to the various stages of election. 89. In case of a wrong acceptance of nomination, the election process should normally not be allowed to be restrained since; acceptance of nomination will allow one more candidate to contest the election and election process should be interfered only in extreme cases when there is an error of law apparent on the face of record. 90. Wrong Rejection of nomination is a battle ground for restraining the election process. 91. Election law for rejection of nomination in case of cooperative societies as observed hereinbefore is the same as election law in case of Representation of People's Act. 92. 90. Wrong Rejection of nomination is a battle ground for restraining the election process. 91. Election law for rejection of nomination in case of cooperative societies as observed hereinbefore is the same as election law in case of Representation of People's Act. 92. When due to wrongful nomination of a candidate there is material effect in the elections, then only the elected authority can be stopped from functioning. 93. It is not every improper acceptance of the nomination that the elected authority is to be restrained. 94. The court or the tribunal has to give effect to the will of the people and when there is no or minimal effect no restraint can be ordered. 95. In the general election law it has been made very clear that the election can be challenged by election petition after the election is over and the candidate cannot be a restrained to function till the election of such candidate is set aside by a trial. 96. Similar view is taken by the Bombay High Court in 1982 CT J 74. The most important judgement in the direction is 212 GLR one DB judgement. The judgement pertains to Gujarat state but is equally applicable in the case of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. 97. The certain position of election law is that elected candidate committee member that is director cannot be restrained to function. However there are certain exceptions to it and the elected candidates may be restrained to function in a rare case very cautiously and not otherwise. 98. Import of law by the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 210 is also that until elections are held invalid no election and elected director may be restrained function. Therefore when the bylaws require a particular procedure to be followed and same is not followed with ulterior motive of taking away a right to contest or right to vote in the election so held will be patently illegal then the elected directors may be restrained to function. 99. In the Karnataka High Court ruling Prathanesa Kisni v. State of Karnataka and Agricultural Marketing Society on 2 January 2013 WP No. 6226, Honourable High Court held that there is complete machinery in Cooperative Societies Act to raise an election dispute and a bunch of petitions were dismissed. 100. 99. In the Karnataka High Court ruling Prathanesa Kisni v. State of Karnataka and Agricultural Marketing Society on 2 January 2013 WP No. 6226, Honourable High Court held that there is complete machinery in Cooperative Societies Act to raise an election dispute and a bunch of petitions were dismissed. 100. In ILR 1986 Kerala 2862 petitioner's 2 to 7 and respondents 3 to 5 were elected as long as in the year 1977 from that time they had been functioning as members of the cooperative management of the section of society. As such Assistant Registrar was right in holding that dispute was maintainable as in substance and effect the dispute related to the validity of elections of petitioners 3 to 5 and respondents 2 to 7 as members managing committee which could have been challenged within specified period. 101. Dispute was held maintainable but it was open to the parties to Pursue the contest in the proceedings. 102. Similarly in the election petition in Sheshiar's case O.A. No. 735 of 2012 in E.L.P No. 12 of 2011, dated 18 Sep. 2012 Madras High court deciding the interim stay application in election dispute did not grant interim stay to the petitioner restraining returned candidate from functioning unless the election petition was decided. 103. So far is the case in hand is concerned, irrespective of the fact as to whether the petition before the Registrar is an election petition on an arbitration petition, the fact of the matter is that the lis before this court is as to whether an interim relief in the nature of a restraint order can be issued, directing the respondent number 6 not to act as director of the House Building Society. 104. The petitioners before this tribunal have come up against the order of non grant of stay by the Registrar cooperative societies. 105. When the main petition is pending disposal before the Registrar before whom nomination papers, affidavit record pertaining to elections is under consideration for deciding the main lis, in this petition where the petitioner has come against the rejection of interim relief restraining respondent no.6 from functioning, this tribunal can not deviate from the principles of grant of injunction by courts which are not satisfied in view of the above authorities and law on the subject. 106. 106. Also regarding the locus standi though it is proper to hold that only those persons who have participated in the election process should be allowed to challenge the election, still the petitioners representing the interests of the House building Society even if held to have locus to challenge the authority of Respondent no. 6 but no law nor justice or equity at his stage permits that final relief should be given at this stage without deciding the main lis. Thus from any point of view both on merits and law I do not find that there is any impropriety in the order of the Registrar. 107. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. 108. File be consigned to record after due completion.