JUDGMENT : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Md. Jalaluddin, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner society in W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2017 and Shri M. Hemchandra, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 690 of 2017; Shri B.P. Sahu, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Registrar in both the cases, Shri Y. Ashang, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Shri Kamminthang Khongsai, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 in W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2017. 1A. Both the petitions are being considered in view of the fact that they have arisen out of a similar set of facts. W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2017: 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Society against the respondents for setting aside the result of election declared on 25-08-2017 electing the respondent No. 4 as a representative of Chandel District to the Manipur State Co-operative Union (hereafter referred to as "the Union"). 2.1 According to the petitioner society, it submitted a complaint to the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel District, Manipur on 14-06-2017 praying for cancellation of 13 (thirteen) delegate members from the list of eligible delegates of Chandel District, issued on 11-06-2017, on the ground that they are not in the promoter's list and also not members of the executive body of the societies as mentioned against each of their names. On the strength of the said complaint, the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel submitted a report on 22-08-2017 to the Returning Officer who is in charge of holding the election as well as to the Chief Executive Officer of the Union for cancellation of the names of the said 13 (thirteen) delegate members. On the strength of the said complaint, the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel submitted a report on 22-08-2017 to the Returning Officer who is in charge of holding the election as well as to the Chief Executive Officer of the Union for cancellation of the names of the said 13 (thirteen) delegate members. 2.2 The president of the petitioner society filed her nomination form as a candidate for election of a delegate to the Union as a representative member of co-operative societies, Chandel District, Manipur as the date of election being fixed by the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 on 25-08-2017 at about 11:00 a.m. in spite of the said proposal for cancellation of the names from the list of delegates, the respondents fixed the date for election of members of the Union on 25-08-2017 at 11:00 a.m., the election of which was held on the same day at about 12:30 p.m. in view of the proposal for cancellation of the said names from the list of the delegates, the Returning Officer vide its letter dated 25-08-2017 addressed to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Manipur, declared that the result of the election of the delegate members of Chandel District be withheld and therefore, the president of the petitioner society came back home. In spite of the said proposal for cancellation, the official respondents allowed them to cast their votes as a result of which the private respondent was declared as a successful candidate by issuing a letter dated 25-08-2017 without giving any information or chance to represent at the time of counting the election which is quite illegal and needs to be interfered by this court. Being aggrieved by the declaration of the said result, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner society through its president on the inter-alia grounds that the official respondents allowed the said 13 (thirteen) persons to cast their votes in the said election by using their photos instead of allowing the real persons to cast their votes in the election resulting in the process of election being unlawful and needs to be set aside. The president of the petitioner society came to know only on 28-08-2017 at 11:00 a.m. that the result of the election of the Union had been declared on the night of 25-08-2017 at the discretion and instruction of the respondent No. 2 without allowing the president of the petitioner society to be present at the time of counting of votes. It has already been submitted that the said 13 (thirteen) persons not being genuine representatives of the societies of the Chandel District, have no right to cast their votes in the said election and the official respondents in collusion with them allowed them to cast their vote in favour of the private respondent. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 wherein it is stated that the Returning Officer issued a notice dated 01-06-2017 for holding an election on 16-06-2017 and in the meantime, the petitioner society submitted a complaint dated 14-06-2017 to the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel. But due to a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2017 being filed, the said election was postponed and the writ petition came to be disposed of on 28-07-2017 with the direction to the Registrar to go ahead with the process of election and in compliance with the said order, the Returning Officer issued a notice dated 09-08-2017 declaring that the election be held on 25-08-2017. In the meantime, the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel addressed a letter dated 22-08-2017 to the Returning Officer which was received by it on 24-08-2017. Being suspicious of the situation, the Returning Officer immediately addressed a letter dated 24-08-2017 to the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel requesting him to give an explanation and in response thereto, the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel informed the Returning Officer vide its letter dated 25-08-2017 that 13 delegate members were eligible and be allowed to cast their votes. It has further been submitted that the election was held on 25-08-2017 in accordance with the provisions of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder as well as the bye-laws. The Returning Officer withheld the result of the election for sometime on account of apprehension of violence and after the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel having clarified vide its letter dated 25-08-2017 that the 13 delegate members were eligible, the Returning Officer declared the result and therefore, there was nothing wrong and illegal. The Returning Officer withheld the result of the election for sometime on account of apprehension of violence and after the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel having clarified vide its letter dated 25-08-2017 that the 13 delegate members were eligible, the Returning Officer declared the result and therefore, there was nothing wrong and illegal. The respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, as well as a rejoinder to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner society, in the similar line but a preliminary objection has been raised as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on ground of non-joinder of the Union as a necessary party and it has also been stated that the mandatory provision as contained in Section 91 of the Act provides that it is the Registrar who is empowered to decide any dispute in relation to election. While denying the averments made in the petition, it has further been stated that the said election was held in compliance with the direction given by this court in W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2017 decided on 28-07-2017 and the District Co-operative Society, Chandel District, after due verification issued a certificate in Form No. A i.e. "Certificate for the Delegates of a Co-operative Societies Affiliated to MSCU" as per the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The intention of the petitioner is nothing but to stall the election process of the Union. W.P. (C) No. 690 of 2017: 4.1 The petitioners who are thirteen in number, have questioned the validity and correctness of the letter dated 22-08-2017 of the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel by which he requested the Returning Officer to cancel their names from being the delegate members of their respective societies. 4.2 The said letter was received by the Returning Officer on 24-08-2017 and on 25-08-2017 when the election was held, they were allowed to cast their votes. After the result of the election being withheld for some time, the same was declared on the same day. On 26-08-2017 six out of thirteen petitioners, submitted a representation to the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel to withdraw the said letter dated 22-08-2017 and the said representation is still pending for consideration, as it has fallen on deaf ears of the State Government. On 26-08-2017 six out of thirteen petitioners, submitted a representation to the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel to withdraw the said letter dated 22-08-2017 and the said representation is still pending for consideration, as it has fallen on deaf ears of the State Government. 4.3 Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the State respondents, the instant writ petition has been filed on the inter-alia grounds that the District Co-operative Officer issued the said letter under threat and pressure exerted to by a group of armed association; that the letter is unsustainable in law, as it violates the principles of natural justice and that it will have no legal significance, as the validity of the list was published on 19-08-2017. 5. In order to decide the issue relating to the maintainability of the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2017, the relevant provisions of the Act are required to be examined by this court. A separate chapter has been provided in the Act as regards the disputes and arbitration consisting of eleven sections starting from Section 91 till Section 101, of which Section 91 is most relevant and therefore, the same is reproduced herein below: "91. Dispute - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, election of the office bearers, conduct of general meetings, management of business of a society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society or its committee against the paid servant of the society or of the liquidator of a society, shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated, or by a creditor of the society, to the Registrar, if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following, namely: (a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or nominee, heir, or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or the liquidator of the society. (b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or a deceased member of a society or a society which is a member of the society. (b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or a deceased member of a society or a society which is a member of the society. (c) a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society, or with whom the society has or had transactions under the provisions of Section 43 and any person claiming through such a person. (d) a surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society under Section 45, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society. (e) any other society, or the liquidator of such a society. (2) When any question arises whether for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section, a matter referred to for decision is a dispute or not, the question shall be considered by the Registrar whose decision shall be final. (3) Save as otherwise provided under sub-section (3) of Section 93, no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1). Explanation 1 - A dispute between the liquidator of a society and the members (including past members or nominees, heirs or legal representatives of deceased members) of the same society shall not be referred to the Registrar under the provisions of sub-section (1). Explanation 2 - for the purposes of this sub-section, a dispute shall include: (i) A claim by or against a society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or due from it to a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representatives of a deceased member, or servant or employee whether such a debt or demand be admitted or not. (ii) A claim by a surety for any such or demand due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan by a society and recovered from the surety owing to the default of the principal borrower, whether such a sum or demand be admitted or not. (ii) A claim by a surety for any such or demand due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan by a society and recovered from the surety owing to the default of the principal borrower, whether such a sum or demand be admitted or not. (iii) A claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, past member or deceased member, by any officer, past officer or deceased officer, by any agent, past agent or deceased agent, or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant, or by its committee, past or present whether such loss be admitted or not. (iv) A refusal or failure by a member, past member or a nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member to deliver possession to a society of land or any other assets assumed by it for breach of conditions of the assignment." Over and above, Rule 28 and 29 of the Election Rules are also relevant and therefore, the same are also being reproduced herein below: "28. Any member of the Union may challenge the elections in General or in particular, within thirty days from the date of announcement of the result of the election by a reference to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Manipur, stating ground on which the election is challenged. 29. Should there be any dispute, in the process of election result or the election, the decision of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Manipur, shall be final." The subject matter in issue relates to the election of the members of the Managing Body of the Union. Section 91 (1) inter-alia provides that any dispute touching the election of the office bearers shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute to the Registrar. Sub-section (3) provides that no court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1). The only exception is as provided in sub-section (3) of the Section 93 and that too, only after the Registrar finds that the question at issue is one involving complicated questions of law and fact. Rule 28 of the Election Rules provides that any member of the Union may challenge the election in general or in particular within thirty days from the date of announcement of the result of the election by a reference to the Registrar. Rule 28 of the Election Rules provides that any member of the Union may challenge the election in general or in particular within thirty days from the date of announcement of the result of the election by a reference to the Registrar. Rule 29 provides that if any dispute arises as regards the process of election or the election, the decision of the Registrar shall be final. On perusal of these provisions, it is absolutely clear that it is the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Manipur who has been empowered to decide any dispute touching the election and the jurisdiction of the court has been ousted except in cases which fall under the sub-section (3) of Section 93. 6. In the present case namely W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2017, when the Returning Officer issued a notice dated 01-06-2017 informing that the election of members to the Union be held on 16-06-2017, the petitioner society submitted a complaint dated 14-06-2017 to the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel. But the said election had to be postponed due to filing of a writ petition which was disposed of on 28-07-2017 with the direction to the Registrar to go ahead with the process of election. After the election having been postponed, the petitioner society appears to have not pursued with its complaint. In compliance with the said order, the Returning Officer issued the notice dated 09-08-2017 declaring that the election be held on 25-08-2017. This time again, the petitioner society appears to have not pursued with its complaint promptly. Only on 22-08-2017 the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel addressed a letter to the Returning Officer which was received on 24-08-2017 and on the same day, the Returning Officer immediately addressed a letter dated 24-08-2017 to the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel requesting him to give an explanation and in response thereto, the District Co-operative Officer, Chandel informed the Returning Officer vide its letter dated 25-08-2017 that 13 delegate members were eligible and be allowed to cast their votes. The election was held on 25-08-2017 and although the Returning Officer withheld the result of the election for some time, it declared the result on the same day which is being questioned in this writ petition. Shri Md. The election was held on 25-08-2017 and although the Returning Officer withheld the result of the election for some time, it declared the result on the same day which is being questioned in this writ petition. Shri Md. Jalaluddin, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner society has submitted that there is no specific provision in the Act by which the validity and correctness of the election can be questioned and moreover, since there is no effective remedy under the provisions of the Act, a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution is maintainable. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed in the case of Committee of Management and Others vs. Vice-Chancellor and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 630 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "22. Apart from the fact that a statutory authority cannot consider the validity of a statute, as has been urged before us by Mr. Chaudhari, it is beyond any doubt or dispute that availability of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground for the High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. It may exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the fact that an alternative remedy is available, inter alia, in a case where the same would not be an efficacious one." Further reliance has been placed in the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court reported in 1991 (4) Kar. L.J. 654 wherein the question was whether the Hon'ble High Court could interfere with the election process in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The subject matter was, in fact, with respect to the election or appointment as the members of the Managing Committee of the Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society in Karnataka. In spite of the objection being raised by the appellant therein that the nominations of some of the respondents should be rejected, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination. The subject matter was, in fact, with respect to the election or appointment as the members of the Managing Committee of the Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society in Karnataka. In spite of the objection being raised by the appellant therein that the nominations of some of the respondents should be rejected, the Returning Officer accepted the nomination. The Karnataka High Court, after referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in particular, the decisions rendered in Nanhoomal and Others vs. Hira Mal, (1976) 3 SCC 21 and S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572 , observed that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of actions taken or orders made in the course of an election to a local authority or any other body on the ground of violation of law, is maintainable but should not be entertained by the High Court unless the violation of the law made out is such as it would justify the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution immediately to prevent abuse of power and waste of public time and money and the alternative remedy by way of Election Petition after the elections is not an efficacious remedy. 7. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Committee of Management case (supra), has observed that the Hon'ble Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the fact that an alternative remedy is available, in a case where the same would not be an efficacious one. The said observation appears to have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a general way and not in the context with respect to the election of a local body. As regards the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, it is submitted that it is not binding on us and more over, the facts of the said case are not similar to that of the present case, in the sense that the validity of the election was not the subject matter in issue in that case and only the action of the returning officer accepting the nomination was challenged. In Nanhoo Mal case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that after the decision in N.P. Ponnuswamy vs. Returning Officer case, there is hardly any room for courts to entertain applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to elections. In Nanhoo Mal case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that after the decision in N.P. Ponnuswamy vs. Returning Officer case, there is hardly any room for courts to entertain applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to elections. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the right to vote or stand for election to the office of the Municipal Board is a creature of the statute and it must be subject to the limitation imposed by it. In S.T. Muthusami case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the view expressed by the full court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the following: "14. In the ultimate analysis, the Full Bench laid down: There is no constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of elections to local bodies such as, Municipalities, Panchayats and the like. However, as it is desirable to resolve election disputes speedily through the machinery of election petitions, the court in the exercise of its discretion should always decline to invoke its writ jurisdiction in an election dispute, if the alternative remedy of an election petition is available. So, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. election Tribunal, Kotah stated: ...though no legislature can impose limitation on these constitutional powers it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of cases. 8. From the aforesaid decision, it is seen that while there is no constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of the elections to local bodies, it is desirable to resolve election disputes speedily through the mechanism as prescribed in the statute. In the instant case, the result of the election held on 25-08-2017 is being challenged by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that in spite of its application for cancellation of the names of the private respondents, the Returning Officer allowed them to cast their votes. In the instant case, the result of the election held on 25-08-2017 is being challenged by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that in spite of its application for cancellation of the names of the private respondents, the Returning Officer allowed them to cast their votes. It may be true that there is no specific provision indicating the grounds and the manner in which the election can be challenged by an aggrieved person but under the provisions of Section 91 of the Act, any dispute touching upon the election shall be referred to the Registrar, whose decision shall be final and moreover, no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. Rule 28 specifically provide that any member, who is aggrieved by the result of the election, may challenge the same by a reference to the Registrar within thirty days. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, instead of referring the matter to the Registrar, has directly approached this court and in terms of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, this court cannot entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2017 is dismissed as not maintainable and as regards the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 690 of 2017, let it be listed on 08-12-2017 for consideration.