ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the respondent nos. 4 to 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dhwani R. Tripathi. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, originally the petitioner has made the following prayers : “B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus and writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.04.2022 and declaring that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are disqualified from contesting election of Respondent No.3 Union as per Byelaw No.26; C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from contesting the election of Respondent No.3 Union, D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the whole election programme of the Respondent No.3 Union and further be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to prepare fresh list of voters and thereafter, declare the election programme;” 3. This Court issued notice on 26.04.2022 making it returnable on 4.05.2022. The petitioner thereafter amended the petition which was permitted by this Court vide order dated 6.05.2022 and the following two prayers were added by the petitioner : “AA. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 18/02/2022 passed in appeal no.10 of 2022 as being illegal, without jurisdiction and the order being a fraud. AAA. Pending admission and dismissal of this petition Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the execution operation and implementation of the order dated 18/02/2022 passed in appeal no.10 of 2022 till the final disposal of the present petition.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner - President of Khodiyar Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd. is member of respondent no.3 - the Visnagar Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union Limited (For short “Union”). 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner - President of Khodiyar Karyakari Sahkari Mandli Ltd. is member of respondent no.3 - the Visnagar Taluka Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union Limited (For short “Union”). 5. The petitioner filed nomination for contesting election of the Managing Committee of respondent no.3-Union, Zone-1 in the election which was scheduled to be held on 9.05.2022. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent nos. 4 to 7 also filed the nomination to contest the election of the Managing Committee of respondent no.3 Union. The petitioner went to file the objections on 20.04.2022 but the petitioner was not allowed to enter the office of respondent no.1-Election Officer and was asked to wait. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not called and therefore, at about 1:30 pm, the petitioner forcefully entered the office and filed the objections. However, the objections of the petitioner were rejected on the ground that the petitioner filed objections at 1:32 pm and time to file objection was over at 11:30 am. The petitioner therefore, initially preferred this petition for rejection of the objections against the nomination of respondent nos. 4 to 7. The petitioner also prayed to delcare that respondent nos. 4 to 7 were disqualified to contest election in view of bye-law no. 26(1) of the bye-laws of the respondent no.3-Union which stipulates that only persons who are representatives of Seva Sahkari Mandli or Vividh Karyakari Sahkari Mandli and Cooperative bank having financial transactions with the Union are entitled to contest election and as respondent nos. 4 to 7 not being representative of Seva Sahkari Mandali, they were not qualified to contest the election. 7. After filing of the petition, it was made known to the petitioner that respondent nos. 4 to 7 preferred an appeal before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) under section 153 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (For short “the Act, 1961”) challenging the bye-law no. 26(1) of the respondent no.3-Union and the Additional Registrar (Appeals) by order dated 18.02.2022 granted stay against operation of the bye-law no. 26(1) and accordingly, respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed their nomination in the election of respondent no.3-Union. The petitioner therefore, sought amendment in the petition which was granted by amending the prayers challenging the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar(Appeals). 8. Learned advocate Mr. 26(1) and accordingly, respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed their nomination in the election of respondent no.3-Union. The petitioner therefore, sought amendment in the petition which was granted by amending the prayers challenging the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar(Appeals). 8. Learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per byelaw no.26(1), respondent nos. 4 to 7 were not qualified to contest the election and therefore, they are required to be declared as disqualified persons for contesting election of the respondent no.3. In support of his submission reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan reported in 1999 (4) SCC 526 , wherein the Apex Court held that the writ petition would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the person is not qualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly. It was submitted that as respondent nos. 4 to 7 were not qualified to contest the election, the petition is maintainable before this Court. 9. It was further submitted that respondent nos. 4 to 7 have committed a fraud on election by filing an appeal under section 153 of the Act, 1961 and obtaining stay from the Additional Registrar (Appeals). In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Vaghela referred to and relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Vasantbhai Vadilal Joshi v. Laxmikuvar Virendrasinh Parmar reported in 2021 LawSuit (Guj) 3700. It was submitted that the petitioner by challenging bye-laws of respondent no.3-Union after more than 20 years of its operation have committed a fraud on the entire election process which would shock the conscience of the Court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic of moral standards but for the stay granted by the Additional Registrar (Appeals), the respondent nos. 4 to 7 would not have been qualified to contest election of respondent no.3-Union. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 7 submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file this petition as respondent nos. 4 to 7 have contested election from different zone and the petitioner cannot raise any objection with regard to contesting the election by respondent nos. 4 to 7. 11. It was further submitted that respondent nos. Dipen Desai appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 7 submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file this petition as respondent nos. 4 to 7 have contested election from different zone and the petitioner cannot raise any objection with regard to contesting the election by respondent nos. 4 to 7. 11. It was further submitted that respondent nos. 4 to 7 became member of the respondent no.3-Union in the year 2021 and when the election program was declared, they came to know about restriction placed by bye-law no. 26(1) and accordingly, the appeal is preferred under section 153 of the Act, 1961 challenging the bye-law no.26(1) of the respondent No.3 Union which is still pending before the Additional Registrar (Appeals). 12. It was submitted that the Additional Registrar (Appeals) passed the interim order on 18.02.2022 after considering the submissions made by respondent nos. 4 to 7 and the petitioner who is not a party in the appeal preferred by respondent nos. 4 to 7, cannot challenge the interim order passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) in the pending appeal. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Desai also pointed out that the petitioner has not made any application to join as a necessary or proper party in the pending appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) and has straightaway amended the present petition after issuance of notice by this Court challenging the order dated 18.02.2022. 14. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Desai submitted that in case of Banaskantha District Co Op Union Ltd v. State of Gujarat Through Deputy Secretary reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1707 , it is held by this Court that bye-laws can be challenged under section 153 of the Act, 1961 for examining the veracity of such bye-laws. 15. It was submitted that the issue whether such appeal is maintainable or not is at large before Additional Registrar (Appeals) to be considered after hearing respondent nos. 4 to 7. It was submitted that at this juncture, that Additional Registrar (Appeals) has only granted interim stay and on basis of such stay of the bye-law no. 26(1), the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed nominations and got elected in the election of respondent no.3-Union held on 9.05.2022. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Desai further submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by election of respondent nos. 26(1), the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed nominations and got elected in the election of respondent no.3-Union held on 9.05.2022. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Desai further submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by election of respondent nos. 4 to 7, proper remedy would be to prefer an Election Petition under section 145U of the Act, 1961 and not by filing petition before this Court indirectly challenging the election of respondent nos. 4 to 7 by making a prayer to declare respondent nos. 4 to 7 as disqualified persons to contest election. 17. Learned advocate Mr. Desai submitted that subsequently, respondent no.3-Union in the Annual General Meeting passed a resolution to amend the bye-law no. 26(1) by deleting restriction placed on the members of the Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd. which is approved by the District Registrar and the petitioner participated in the said meeting. 18. Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela in rejoinder submitted that bye-laws of respondent no.3-Union could not have been challenged by individual members under section 153 of the Act, 1961 read with section 9 and interim order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) amounts to amending the bye-laws though not prayed for by respondent no.3-Union. Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela also submitted that the petitioner has already made an application before the Additional Registrar to provide the copies of the documents on 27.04.2022 which is still pending for adjudication. 19. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner has amended the petition after issuance of notice on coming to know about the appeal preferred by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 under section 153 of the Act, 1961 by challenging the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar granting relief to respondent nos. 4 to 7 against the operation of bye-law no.26(1) of the bye-laws of respondent no.3-Union. 20. It also appears from the record that the petitioner has made an application for the documents to be supplied by the Additional Registrar but the same was not supplied to the petitioner till date. 21. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not made any application to be joined as a necessary or a proper party in the pending appeal filed by respondent nos. 21. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not made any application to be joined as a necessary or a proper party in the pending appeal filed by respondent nos. 4 to 7 before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) so as to raise the objection with regard to the maintainability of such appeal under the provisions of the Act,1961. Instead the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) whereby bye-law no. 26(1) is made inoperational in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 7. Pursuant to the order dated 18.02.2022, respondent nos. 4 to 7 already filed nominations and the objection filed by the petitioner was also rejected by respondent no.1 Election Officer as the same was filed after the prescribed time limit. 22. In such circumstances, the remedy available to challenge the election of respondent nos. 4 to 7 would be to prefer an Election Petition under section 145U of the Act, 1961. However, as the petitioner has also sought a declaration with regard to the status of respondent nos. 4 to 7 to be declared as disqualified under the bye-laws of respondent no.3 Union, then the petition would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it is pertinent to note that when respondent nos. 4 to 7 preferred nominations, the stay order granted by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) was in operation. 23. In such circumstances, considering the veracity of the stay order granted by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) at this stage would be a futile exercise for the simple reason that the petitioner is neither a party before the Additional Registrar(Appeals) nor had any occasion to raise any issue with regard to the maintainability of appeal before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) challenging his jurisdiction and merely because the objections of the petitioner were rejected by the Election Officer, the petitioner, thereafter, could not have challenged the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) by amending the petition so as to ventilate the grievance with regard to disqualification of respondent nos. 4 to 7. 24. 4 to 7. 24. The petitioner is therefore, required to be joined as a necessary party in the pending appeal before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) and instead of making any observations with regard to the maintainability of the appeal before the Additional Registrar or observation as to whether order dated 18.02.2022 is passed in accordance with law or not, the petitioner is directed to make an application before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) in the pending Appeal No. 10/2022 filed by respondent nos. 4 to 7 within a period of two weeks from today and the same shall be granted by Additional Registrar providing all the documents to the petitioner so as to raise all the contentions before the Additional Registrar which are raised in this petition. The Additional Registrar (Appeals) is directed to consider the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 25. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged.