ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.5.2014 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, whereby the Joint Registrar exercised authority in the provisions of section 80-A of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act, 1960”)for which result was declared on 10.1.2013 has been declared as null and void in the eyes of law. 2. It is petitioner's contention that petitioner is a Primary Cooperative Assistant and a certificate of election was issued in favour of Smt. Dayavati Sharma, who was an elected President of the said society. It is submitted that as per section 64 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, if any persons aggrieved by election of any Director or by the President of the Primary Society, he has a remedy of challenging said action under the provisions of 64(2)(V) of the Act, 1960. 3. It is further submitted that one Keshav Yadav had made a representation to the Joint Registrar on the basis of which a show cause notice was issued on 6.12.2013. Petitioner/society had filed a reply to the said show cause notice and has categorically denied the allegations made in the notice and it is also submitted that complainant himself is not a woman though complaint has been made in regard to election of a woman candidate and further that the powers under section 80-A of the Act, 1960 can only be exercised during the existence of the election and not once the election is over. It is submitted that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar to have interfered with the concluded election and thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is a special provision, then general provision cannot be given effect to and has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramanuj Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal and others, as reported in 2008 Revenue Nirnay, 175. Similarly reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning, Weaving Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pardesh and others, as reported in AIR 1961 S.C.1170 to bring home the issue that the well known rule that construction is that general provisions yield to special provisions. Similarly reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning, Weaving Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pardesh and others, as reported in AIR 1961 S.C.1170 to bring home the issue that the well known rule that construction is that general provisions yield to special provisions. It is submitted that the rule is whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute and the latter, taken in its most comprehensive sense, would overrule the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case of Naresh Sharma v. Commissioner-cum-Registrar Co-operative Society, Bhopal and others, as reported in 2008 RN 130= 2008(5) M.P.H.T. 208 , the Coordinative Bench of this Court held that since Election Officer is an subordinate to the Registrar, proceeding for conducting election is a “proceeding” as contemplated in section 80-A of the Act in which Registrar can interfere exercising jurisdiction. It is submitted that there is no illegal in the impugned order called for interference. 6. The fact of the matter is that after amendment in the Cooperative Societies Act, similar issue as has been raised in this writ petition was before Division Bench of this High Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in case of Vijay Tiwari v. M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, as reported in 2014 RN 444 =2014 (4) MPLJ 708. While deciding the case of Vijay Tiwari (supra), in paragraph 19, Division Bench has discussed the judgment in case of Naresh Sharma (supra), and observed that the context of the said judgment was that the whole election was found to be sham on account of rejection of nomination papers without proper scrutiny. In paragraph 16, it has been held that Registration Officer appointed under rule 49-C of 1962 rules is not appointed by the State Government to assist the Registrar and being not subordinate to Registrar it is beyond the power of Registrar under section 80-A of 1960 Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any decision taken by Registration Officer. 7. In paragraph 16, it has been held that Registration Officer appointed under rule 49-C of 1962 rules is not appointed by the State Government to assist the Registrar and being not subordinate to Registrar it is beyond the power of Registrar under section 80-A of 1960 Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any decision taken by Registration Officer. 7. In view of such decision of the Division Bench which has upheld the findings arrived at by the Cooperative Tribunal to the effect that the Additional Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining an application under section 80-A of 1960 Act against the order passed by the Registration Officer, this Court is of the opinion that in the light of availability of special provision for challenging the election, the Joint Registrar was not competent to exercise his authority under section 80-A of the Act, 1960. Thus, the impugned order having been passed without authority deserves to be set aside and is set-aside. Petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.