ORDER : The petitioner who is disqualified from the respondent No.6-Society is before this Court for writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to conduct election to the management of respondent No.6 by permitting the petitioner to contest in the general elections to elect the Board of Management of the respondent No.6Society scheduled to be held on 31.03.2020. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a member of respondent No.6 Society having been inducted to the membership from the past several years. He is interested in the well being of the society and also had financial interest in the same. The respondent No.6 is a Credit Cooperative Society and is catering to the needs and requirements of its members. It is governed under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. It is further contended that respondent No.6 is administered by an elected Board which was last elected in the year 2015. Over the years, the regular membership of respondent No.6 Society has swelled. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have declared elections to the Management of the respondent No.6 and it is scheduled to be held on 31.03.2020. It is further case of the petitioner that petitioner was a Director of the respondent No.6 society and the respondent No.6 in turn affiliated to the respondent No.7 which is a federation of Credit Cooperative Societies representing its interests. As a Director of respondent No.6, the petitioner became eligible to become a Director of respondent No.7 federation and he became its elected representative in the election which was held on 20.07.2014. The elections to the respondent No.6 was held on 08.03.2015. In that election, the petitioner was defeated and he was not a Board member or Director. In the meanwhile, a dispute was raised challenging the continuation of the petitioner as a Director of the respondent No.7 as he was no longer a Director of the respondent No.6 from where he was elected as a Director of the respondent No.7 federation. The dispute culminated in an appeal before the respondent No.3the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in UBC7/289/INELIGIBLE/201516. In the meanwhile, a dispute was raised challenging the continuation of the petitioner as a Director of the respondent No.7 as he was no longer a Director of the respondent No.6 from where he was elected as a Director of the respondent No.7 federation. The dispute culminated in an appeal before the respondent No.3the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in UBC7/289/INELIGIBLE/201516. The respondent No.3 by its order dated 27.09.2017 held that since the petitioner is no longer a member of the respondent No.6 society, he has violated the provisions of Section 18B of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act and consequently, the petitioner cannot become a Director of any society for a period of three years as per Section 29(8)(d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri Sailesh S.Katarey, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was an erstwhile Director of respondent No.6 society and as its representative, he was competent to contest in the elections to the Board of Management of the respondent No.7 in the year 2014. He was duly elected and he was continued to hold the position of Director of respondent No.6 till 08.03.2015 when he was defeated. The period of disqualification envisaged under Section 29(c)(8)(d) is maximum period of five years. Though the order of the respondent No.3 was passed on 27.09.2017, it cannot extend beyond the period of the Board. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to contest in the ensuing election scheduled to be held on 31.03.2020. Therefore, he sought to allow the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri K.R.Nityananda, learned Government Advocate on taking notice to respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri G.V.Shashikumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that though the petitioner came to be elected in the year 2014, there was a dispute raised by respondent No.7 and the Presidents of some of other Cooperative Societies by filing an appeal before the respondent No.3-Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The respondent No.3 considering the appeal filed by the parties, by the order dated 27.09.2017 disqualified the petitioner for a period of 3 years from contesting to the elections of any society with effect from 27.09.2017 under the provisions of Section 29(c)(8)(d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. The respondent No.3 considering the appeal filed by the parties, by the order dated 27.09.2017 disqualified the petitioner for a period of 3 years from contesting to the elections of any society with effect from 27.09.2017 under the provisions of Section 29(c)(8)(d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to contest in the elections of respondent No.6 scheduled on 31.03.2020. Therefore, writ of mandamus cannot be issued as prayed for as the petitioner is not at all eligible to contest in the elections. Therefore, they sought to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was elected in the year 2014 with respondent No.6 as a member and subsequently, election of respondent No.6 was held on 08.03.2015, where the petitioner was defeated and he was not a member or Director of the respondent No.6. In the meanwhile, dispute was raised challenging the continuation of the petitioner as a Director of respondent No.7 before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 considering the entire material on record, by the order dated 27.09.2017 disqualified the petitioner from contesting to the elections of any society for a period of three years under the provisions of Section 29(c)(8)(d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act with effect from 27.09.2017. Admittedly, the said order passed by respondent No.3 has reached finality. In view of the order passed by respondent No.3 disqualifying the petitioner for a period of three years i.e., from 29.07.2017 to 29.07.2020, question of issuing writ of mandamus does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any legal enforceable right to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for in the present writ petition. 7. In view of the above, the petitioner has not made out any prima faice case to issue writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.6 and 7 exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.