^ fiir^ PETITIONER WR!TPET!T!ON(C1 .S820F2088 Swarath Lal Tamrakar. S/o Late Panna Lal Tamrakar, aged about 65 years, R/o Moti Para, Durg, Distt. Durg (CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Co-operatlve Socisties uepanment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. 3. 4. Registrar, Co-operative Sociefies, Raipur, Telibhandha, Raipur (CG). Additional Officer. Coilector, Durg, Returninj 5. s;. Senior Co-operative Inspector (Presidinj Officer), Co-operative Dept. Durg, C/o Office of Deputy Registrar, Bunkar Sangh, Bujicijng, Durg (CG$. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Durg (fn-charge Officer Durg), Dlstt. WhoieSale Consumer Co-operative Store, Durg, Registration No.608. 1 Prakash Chand Shri Shri Mat, S/o Johri Lal Shri Shri Mal, aged about 45 years, R/o Gavii Pars, Durg (CG). ^ (Writ petition undefnArticie 226 of the Constitution of tnefia) SingleBench : Hon'bfeShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Anju Ahuja, counseiforthepefiSoner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri P.R. Pat^nkar, counsel for the respondent No.6. ORDER (Passed on this 24 day of September, 2008) Bythts petition, the petitionerseeKsthefoliowing reliefe : "i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pfeased to ca!) for the rscords. ii) iii) This Hon'bte Court may klndiy be pleased to quash the entire electipn proceedings fdr the eiection of deiegate so far as group 4 is concem. That, the answering respondents may kindfy be restrained from proceecfing further as far as eiection of directors of Durg District whoie saie consumer cooperative store is concem. ssmllilsmaES '.'""l gaft: V) vi) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the preliminary issue/objection concerning membership of respondent No.6 before proceeding w'rth the election in question. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also be granted. Cost ofthe petition maykindly be paid." 2) In this petition filed on 30-1-2008, it is admitted position that after filing of this petition, election of delegates and Directors of Durg District had atready taken ptace. 3) The issue involved in this petition, as is evident from the prayer above mentioned, has become infructuous, as it is a trite taw that no dispute with regard tp election can be chatlenged in any other petition exceptsnelectionpetition. 4) In the matter of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer, Namakka! Conststuency, Namakkal, Saiem Dsst, and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there shoutd be two attacte on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are goingon by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution (the ordinarv iurisdiction of the courts having been expressly excluded) "andanother after they have been completed by means of an elecSon petition." 5) In the matter of Manda Jagannath vs. K.S. Rathnam and others2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "12. In our opinion, whether the returning officer is justified in rejecting this Form B submitted by the first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writjurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an etection petition only. < 19. In Election Commission of India v. Shivaji (supra) this Court while considering a challengs to the election notification which included certain Zila Parishads within a notified constituency, held following the judgment in 1AlR1952(39).SC64 2 JT 2004 (5) SC8 ^?^^3s ,~% Gowri Ponnuswami (supra) thateven ifthere was any ground relating to the noncompliance with the provisions provisions of fce Act and the Constitution on which the validity of any eiection process could be questioned, the person interested in questioning the etection has to wait till the election is over and institute a petitiori in accordance with section 81 ofthe Act caliing in question the election of the suceessful candidate." 6) In the case of Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh and others3, ttie Hon'ble Supreme Court observed Uiat when the efficacious altemative remedy under provisions of law is available, the 1-ligh Court in exercise of plenary jurisdiction may not order quashing the etection of the elected chairman or to start fresh election process. 7) Section 64(2)(v) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for sfiort 'W?e Art, 1960") provides for a petition before the Registrar in connection wtth the eiection of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society. Since election had already taken place, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to question the election of delegates and Directors in exeroise qf its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to take recourse to provisions of Section 64(2)(v) of the Act, 1960,ifsoadvised. 8) In view of the foregoing, this petition has become infructuous and accordingly it is ctismissed. However, on the request of ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the above stated provisions of law, if so advised. 9) Consequently, all the pending applications stand disposed of. 's-*^AOW *<^ 3 (2005) 8 SCC 383 P..1