ORDER : The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of the second respondent dated 05.06.2015 and consequently forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from removing the present office bearers who are elected as Directors of Q-1193 A.Punavasal Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short 'the Society) and holding office. 2. The short facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:- 2.1. According to the petitioner, an election for the said Society was declared on 04.03.2013 for electing 11 Directors and from among the 11 Directors, one of them would be elected as a President and one of them would be elected as a Vice President. The election was held on 27.04.2013. Totally 21 candidates contested for the post of Directors and the election was properly conducted and counting of votes was done on 30.04.2013 and 11 Directors were elected, who in turn, elected the petitioner as the President and one K.Duraichamy as the Vice President on 06.05.2013. At that time of election, neither of them objected for selecting the candidates. Accordingly, the elected Executive Committee took charge on 09.05.2013. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent, who is the unsuccessful candidate without impleading the successful candidates filed a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD).No.16533 of 2013 directing the second respondent therein to complete the enquiry in Election Petition No.1519 of 2011 for recounting of votes in the election held on 27.04.2013. 2.2. By an order, dated 07.10.2013, this Court directed the respondents therein to complete the exercise and publish the results within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Further, the election dispute can be raised under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar, who in turn, should conduct an enquiry as per the provision mandate under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1988. However, on the basis of the alleged irregularity, this Court had given a direction for recounting and accordingly, a notice was issued on 02.12.2013. Immediately, the petitioner submitted written objection on 06.12.2013, as the recounting was going to be done without giving an opportunity of hearing. 2.3. According to the petitioner, there are many irregularities in the recounting as the seal was opened without the presence of the Deputy Registrar who has originally sealed it. Immediately, the petitioner submitted written objection on 06.12.2013, as the recounting was going to be done without giving an opportunity of hearing. 2.3. According to the petitioner, there are many irregularities in the recounting as the seal was opened without the presence of the Deputy Registrar who has originally sealed it. The fourth respondent had not even stated the number of votes he had obtained and the number of votes wrongly counted. Therefore, the petitioner objected for recounting and only two persons, were allowed at the time of recounting, namely, the petitioner and one R.Jeganathamoorthy, that too, by obtaining signatures in blank papers. They also expressed their dissatisfaction and they made written objections on 15.12.2013. Inspite of the same, the recounting was done. 2.4. According to him, the authority misinterpreted and misused the order of this Court to suit their convenience. The records have been tampered and even the signatures of the Election Officer in the vote slip are differing. Inspite of the objections, they proceeded to dissolve the democratically elected Executive Committee. At that point of time, the petitioner approached this Court by filing two sets of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.20681 to 20683 of 2013 and W.P.(MD).Nos.20943, 20951 to 20956 of 2013. This Court, granted interim order on 20.12.2013 and 30.12.2013 protecting the interests of the petitioner. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, it is stated that the petitioner was provided with the alleged declaration of recounting result dated 14.12.2013. The difference between the votes in the original counting and recounting cannot be so huge when it has been monitored by a team of responsible officers. The respondents 4 to 12 have not raised any allegations against the counting officials. Ultimately, the Writ Petitions preferred by the petitioner were dismissed on 25.04.2014 holding that the petitioner can prefer an appeal under Section 90 of the Act. 2.5. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.(MD).Nos.664 to 673 of 2014 and also obtained an order of status quo and finally, it was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court holding that the petitioner should prefer a statutory appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner and their members preferred a statutory appeal before the first respondent under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, on 21.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner and their members preferred a statutory appeal before the first respondent under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, on 21.04.2015. Since the stay petition was refused to be numbered, he preferred another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.7587 of 2015, wherein, an interim protection was given to the petitioner. However the second respondent rejected the petition preferred by the petitioner on 20.04.2015. Challenging the said action, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.7882 of 2015 in Appeal No.1140 of 2015 filed against the order of declaration of recounting results for the election for the post of Directors of the Society. 2.6. This Court, by order, dated 06.05.2015, directed the first respondent to take the appeal on file and directed to dispose of the same within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed, whereby, the petitioner was directed to handover the charge to the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, they have not handed over the charge till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. The existing board has not been put on notice or dissolved. There is no mention about the appeal provision or grant of time for preferring an appeal in the impugned order. Therefore, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is per se illegal and violation of principles of natural justice. To sum up, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is to be set aside 2.7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and with mala fide intention, it has been passed, as against the provisions of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Registration Act, 1983 and Rules 52, 53 and 107 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. The recounting is done only on the basis of certain assumptions. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent reiterating the facts regarding the various attempts made by the petitioner to stall the recounting of the votes at every stage by specifically pointing out that such recounting was done only in the presence of the authorites, that too, as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.16533 of 2013. The petitioner has raised various allegations and litigations only after being defeated in the election. The petitioner has raised various allegations and litigations only after being defeated in the election. The second respondent has provided ample opportunities to the petitioner as well the rival groups. The fourth respondent has already assumed the charge, which has also been recorded in the minutes book of the Society on 05.06.2015. The present Writ Petition is filed with an ulterior motive and it is liable to be dismissed. 4. Similarly, the learned Counsel for the other private respondents filed typed set of papers including the order of the Deputy Registrar, 18.06.2015, whereby, it is indicted that one Kalimuthu assumed as the President and one Rajathi assumed as the Vice President, as per resolution passed by the Society on 05.06.2015. Their signatures have been sent to the bank for operation of accounts which has been acknowledged and accepted and that status quo as on date continues, that is to say, that the newly elected officer bearers are continuing. They have been continuously occupying the office right from 05.06.2015. In this connection, various other documents have been produced before this Court to prove that they are in office including they maintain the jewel loan account and other accounts. A perusal of the typed set of paper would further reveal that the petitioner and other members were enquired and they gave depositions right from 19.05.2015, 20.05.2015 and 27.05.2015 and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. To sum up, they would contend the order impugned in this Writ Petition should be upheld in all respects. 5. Heard all the parties and perused the material available on record. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken for final disposal. 6. After scanning through the documents filed by all parties, one thing is very much clear that the whole episode is nothing but the petitioner refuse to digest the defeat inspite of various litigations. He filed Writ Petitions after Writ Petitions from time to time and on the basis of the interim order, he managed to stay in the office, in one way or the other. Initially, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition. Though this Court has granted an interim order, ultimately, dismissed the said Writ Petition asking him to file an appeal under Section 90 of the Act. As against which, he preferred a Writ Petition, which also met the same fate. 6.1. Initially, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition. Though this Court has granted an interim order, ultimately, dismissed the said Writ Petition asking him to file an appeal under Section 90 of the Act. As against which, he preferred a Writ Petition, which also met the same fate. 6.1. All along in the proceedings, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity and order has been passed behind back. The records would clearly indicate that ample opportunities were given to both sides and orders have been passed. In the case on hand, depositions were also recorded in the form of questionnaire. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the recounting is wrong and therefore, he wanted to quash the impugned order cannot be countenanced in the eye of law. It is pertinent to point out that at the time of recounting, the petitioner was very much available and he did not make much ado at that point of time. Now, he comes up with a new story that the concerned officer who sealed it, was not available. There is no embargo for the officer who has been duly appointed for the particular purpose to open it. Further, it is not necessary for the particular officer who sealed it, should be available to open it. What is to be seen in such type of cases is only whether it was sealed by the officer concerned and it is in tact. At the time of recounting, the petitioner simply walked out on his own volition, without assigning any reason. While moving the Writ Petitions by the petitioner, an order of status quo was granted by this Court. During such time, the fourth respondent has already taken charge. He continues to hold the office right from 05.06.2015 so as to say the petitioner is no more in office, atleast, from 05.06.2015. 7. In the light of the above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no procedural irregularities as alleged by the petitioner and every thing has been done as per the direction of this Court and accordingly, the election petition was also disposed of, in accordance with law. No interference is called for at the hands of this Court to quash the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 8. No interference is called for at the hands of this Court to quash the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 8. In fine, there is no merit whatsoever in the contentions of the petitioner and this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.