JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner is a member of respondent No.1 society and residing at village Bhatamal in Palanpur Taluka, District Banaskantha District. The petitioner is engaged in rearing cattle and supplies milk to respondent No.1 and thereby earns his livelihood. It is the case of the petitioner that managing committee of respondent No.1 society had expired in the year 2017, but no election was being held and therefore, the petitioner gave an application on 17.6.2017 to the Chairman and Secretary of respondent No.1 society. However, in absence of any reply / response, the petitioner gave an application to the District Registrar on 21.6.2017 to ensure the election of respondent No.1 society. The respondent No.1 society, with a view to over-reach the application filed by the petitioner, issued agenda on 24.6.2017 for holding annual general meeting against the provisions of section 77 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 (“the Act” for short) and tried to evade the election by nominating managing committee of respondent No.1 society instead of holding the election. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Lavad Suit being Lavad Suit No.107 of 2017 before respondent No.3 praying for staying the annual general meeting dated 24.6.2017 and further requested to direct the society to hold election as per the Act, Rules and Bye-laws. The respondent No.3 granted stay in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 gave an application below Exh.33 on 19.4.2021 stating that respondent No.1 is ready and willing to hold the election as per the Act, Rules and Bye-laws and in view of the same, appropriate order be passed to hold the election. In pursuance of the said application, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 25.6.2021 directing to hold the election under the supervision of the office of the District Registrar, Banaskantha. By an application dated 2.7.2021, the petitioner requested the District Registrar to hold the election as per the order of respondent No.3 dated 25.6.2021. The District Registrar by order dated 3.7.2021 appointed Shri D.K. Aakwod, Cooperative Officer (Milk) as Election Officer for holding the election of respondent No.1 society. It appears that the Election Officer asked for the record from respondent No.1. The District Registrar by order dated 3.7.2021 appointed Shri D.K. Aakwod, Cooperative Officer (Milk) as Election Officer for holding the election of respondent No.1 society. It appears that the Election Officer asked for the record from respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication, it appears that respondent No.1 filed the review application before the Board of Nominees for reviewing the order dated 25.6.2021 on the ground that since the election is being held in the year 2021, voters list is to be prepared on the basis of the situation as on 31.3.2021. The advocate on behalf of the petitioner filed objections to the said application and respondent No.3 fixed the said application for hearing on 5.7.2021. On 5.7.2021, respondent No.3 orally directed the parties to make their submissions before the District Registrar for holding the election. Respondent No.1 on 3/15.7.2021 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 praying for stay of the order dated 25.6.2021 passed by respondent No.3. The notice came to be issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 on 13.7.2021 and the hearing was fixed on 15.7.2021. The petitioner appeared through the advocate and requested for some time. However, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 15.7.2021 staying the order dated 25.6.2021. The said impugned order dated 15.7.2021 reads thus : “As the order passed below Exh.1 in Lavad Case No.107/2017 by learned Nominee is not in consonance with sections 73 and 74 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 and Rules 33 and 34 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules 1965, sanctioned bye-laws and the election rules, interim injunction in terms of paragraph 3(A) of the injunction application below Exh.5 is granted till 29.7.2021. Notice be issued to the opponents defendants returnable on 29.7.2021 as to why this stay order should not be confirmed.” 3. Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the officer came to be appointed by the District Registrar on 2.7.2021 and therefore, election process was in motion. Notice be issued to the opponents defendants returnable on 29.7.2021 as to why this stay order should not be confirmed.” 3. Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the officer came to be appointed by the District Registrar on 2.7.2021 and therefore, election process was in motion. The respondent No.2, in view of the above, ought not to have granted interim injunction for staying election process because if respondent No.1 had any dispute, the said dispute firstly be raised before the Election Officer and the decision of the Election Officer can be challenged before the appropriate forum and that respondent No.1 could avail alternative efficacious remedy by filing election petition after election is over under the provisions of section 96 of the Act. Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate also submitted that voters list for ensuing election is to be prepared as per the situation prevailing as on 31st March of a year in which the election is to be held. In the present case, the term of the society had expired in the year 2017 and therefore, election was held as per the voters list as on 31.3.2017. Mr. Vaghela further submitted that respondent No.2 had failed to interpret the provisions of Rules 33 and 34 of the Rules 1965. The respondent No.2 had also failed to interpret the provisions of sections 74 and 74 of the Act. Mr. Vaghela lastly submitted that respondent No.2 authority ought not to have admitted the appeal against consent order and therefore, the same is illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 society submitted that present petition is barred by delay in view of the fact that the present petition is filed against the order dated 15.7.2021 passed by respondent No.2 Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal stayed the order below Exh.1 dated 25.6.2021 passed in Lavad suit No.107 of 2021 by learned Board of Nominees. Mr. Desai, learned advocate submitted that present petition is arising out of the order passed by respondent No.2 Tribunal whereby the order passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana dated 25.6.2021 is stayed and therefore, this Court may not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mr. Desai, learned advocate submitted that present petition is arising out of the order passed by respondent No.2 Tribunal whereby the order passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana dated 25.6.2021 is stayed and therefore, this Court may not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Desai submitted that the writ petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.7.2021 and when the appeal is pending, the writ petitioner can raise his grievance before the Tribunal. It was also submitted by Mr. Desai that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 25.8.2021 and that the petition may not be entertained and the writ petitioner may avail statutory remedy before the Tribunal where the proceedings are pending for adjudication. On merits of the matter, Mr. Desai submitted that the Lavad Suit before the Board of Nominees, Mehsana was pending till 2021 and therefore, since no election was held and because of the interim order of the Board of Nominees, Mehsana, the old managing committee was functioning, respondent No.1 was constrained to write a letter to the District Registrar, Palanpur dated 19.4.2021 clarifying that if the petitioner was to withdraw the suit before the Board of Nominees, Mehsana, then the society was ready and willing to hold election as per the provisions of the bye-laws of the society. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 19.4.2021, the order came to be passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana dated 25.6.2021 thereby directed to the effect that election of the society would be held by the District Registrar, Palanpur. Mr. Desai, learned advocate submitted that the aforesaid relief / direction issued by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana was beyond the prayers as prayed for in the Lavad Suit. Mr. Desai, learned advocate submitted that the order was passed by the District Registrar, Palanpur dated 3.7.2021 (page 20 of the paper book) whereby the Election Officer is appointed and also issued direction that voters list should be prepared of the year 2017. The order passed by the District Registrar was beyond the direction of the Board of Nominees, Mehsana and since the order passed by the District Registrar, Palanpur was consequential, respondent No.1 was constrained to approach the Tribunal under section 102 of the Act challenging the order passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana dated 25.6.2021. The order passed by the District Registrar was beyond the direction of the Board of Nominees, Mehsana and since the order passed by the District Registrar, Palanpur was consequential, respondent No.1 was constrained to approach the Tribunal under section 102 of the Act challenging the order passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana dated 25.6.2021. Paragraph 16 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.1 stating grounds on which the order passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana was required to be challenged reads thus : “16. It is submitted that the order of the Board of Nominees, Mehsana was challenged by the society on the following amongst other points : A. The order passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana travelled beyond the scope of the Lavad suit. B. The directions issued by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana was contrary to the prayers in the plaint itself. C. Board of Nominees, Mehsana could not have directed the District Registrar, Palanpur to conduct the elections of the society in absence of prayers. D. If the directions of the Board of Nominees, Mehsana is accepted than the elections of the society would be contrary to the Act, Rules and bye laws itself. E. Directions issued by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana is contrary to the byelaws of the society.” 5. Mr. Desai, learned advocate submitted that as per the bye-laws of the society, the election is to be carried out as per the procedure enumerated in the bye-laws by the Election Officer appointed by the society. Mr. Desai, learned advocate lastly submitted that the order passed by the Board of Nominees, Mehsana is directly contrary to the byelaws of the society, so also against Sections 73 and 74 of the Act and Rules 33 and 34 of 1965 Rules and therefore, considering prima facie case in favour of respondent No.1 society, respondent No.2 Tribunal has stayed the order of the Board of Nominees, Mehsana by the impugned order dated 15.7.2021. 6. Since the facts as stated above are undisputed, the same are not repeated for arriving at the final decision with regard to the present writ application. 7. 6. Since the facts as stated above are undisputed, the same are not repeated for arriving at the final decision with regard to the present writ application. 7. It appears that the writ petitioner herein preferred Lavad Suit being Lavad Suit No.107 of 2017 before respondent No.3 praying to stay annual general meeting of respondent No.1 society dated 24.6.2017 and further requested to direct respondent No.1 society to hold election as per the Act, Rules and bye-laws. It appears that respondent No.3 by order dated 25.6.2021 directed to hold election under the supervision of the officer of the District Registrar, Banaskantha. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by Board of Nominees, respondent No.1 preferred review before the Board of Nominees on the ground that election is being held for the year 2021 and therefore, voters list is to be prepared on the basis of the situation as on 31.3.2021. The respondent No.3 orally directed the parties to make their submissions before the District Registrar for holding the election. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by respondent No.3 dated 25.6.2021, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the said order dated 25.6.2021 on the ground that the order passed by the Board of Nominees is beyond the scope of Lavad Suit and the same is contrary to the prayers and directions as prayed for in the plaint itself. That the Board of Nominees could not have directed the District Registrar, Banaskantha to conduct the election of respondent No.1 society in absence of such prayer and that as per the bye-laws of the society, the election officer is to be appointed by the society and the election is to be carried out as per the procedure enumerated in the bye-laws. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 15.7.2021 granted ad-interim relief below Exh.5 in terms of paragraph 3(A) on the ground that as the order passed below Exh.1 in Lavad Case No.107/2017 by learned Nominee is not in consonance with sections 73 and 74 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 and Rules 33 and 34 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules 1965, sanctioned bye-laws and the election rules, interim injunction in terms of paragraph 3(A) of the injunction application below Exh.5 is granted till 29.7.2021. Notice was issued to the opponents defendants and the appeal was kept for further hearing on 29.7.2021. Notice was issued to the opponents defendants and the appeal was kept for further hearing on 29.7.2021. It appears that rather than filing the reply to the notice issued by the Tribunal or taking steps for seeking vacation of ad-interim relief which was granted by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 15.7.2021, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ application on 30.7.2021 availing the remedy under the writ jurisdiction. 8. Undisputedly, the issue is yet at large before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the facts, passed ex parte order of injunction and the writ petitioner has directly approached this Court. In view of the above, this Court, without expressing anything on merits of the case, at this stage, and in view of the facts as stated above, is not inclined to test legality and validity of the order of the Tribunal dated 15.7.2021 which is ex parte ad-interim order and the parties are at liberty to voice their submissions before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after considering all the submissions of the parties including that of the writ petitioner, may pass appropriate order giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties on the question of interim relief which is pending before the Tribunal. 9. For the reasons stated above, the petition failes and the same is required to be dismissed. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 15.7.2021 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in Appeal No.39 of 2021. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.