Petitioner, a member of the first respondent, a Milk Producers Co-operative Society challenges Ext.P2 notice issued scheduling the election to the committee of that society and Ext.P4 voters list. The plea of the petitioner in the writ petition is that Ext.P2 notice is invalid, it having been issued in violation of Rule 35(3)(a)(iii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules" and Clause 5.1(a)(i) of the bye-laws of the first respondent society. It is also contended that the fixation of 14-7-2008 as the date for consideration of objections to the voters list is in violation of natural justice since Ext.P2 notice was served on the petitioner through post only on 15-7-2008, owing to which he could not file objections on or before 14-7-2008. It is contended that many eligible persons are excluded from Ext.P4 list while different ineligible persons are included therein. The petitioner seeks a further direction to respondents 1 and 2 to prepare voters list afresh after giving fresh notice of not less than seven days. This relief is sought on the assumption that Rule 35(3)(a)(iii) enjoins a notice period of seven days for such purpose.

2. The first respondent society has filed a counter affidavit contending, among other things, that the petitioner cannot make out any personal grievance as his name is included in the final list of voters and the petitioner is not a candidate contesting in the election. It is further pleaded by the first respondent that as per Clause 3.(b) (iii) of Ext.R1(a) bye-law, only those persons who have either measured milk for 180 days in the previous year or had measured milk of a total quantity of not less than 500 litres during that period would be eligible to vote and that Ext.R1(b) list has been prepared in terms thereof and such list was submitted along with the resolution to the Returning Officer.

3. On his application, additional third respondent was impleaded. He is also a member of the society and supports the plea of the first respondent.

4. The second respondent Returning Officer has filed counter affidavit stating that the committee of the first respondent forwarded the resolution dated 12-6-2008 to the competent authority, following which the second respondent was appointed as the Returning Officer and Ext.R2 (a) (Ext.P1) election notification was issued. The committee in office had prepared the voters list and had approved the same on 12-6-2008 and that the action of publishing and hearing the objections to the voters list had been done in conformity with the statutory provisions. It is stated that no objections to the draft voters list was received while 22 nominations were received for nine seats. Three nominations were withdrawn and final list of 19 candidates was published as per Ext.R2(b) on 20-7-2008.

5. Petitioner filed reply affidavit controverting also another plea of the respondents that the issue in hand could be the subject-matter of an arbitration under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". Different contentions are raised in the reply affidavit regarding the credibility of the voters list. It is also further contended that action was taken against the committee in office by issuing notice under Section 32(1) of the Act and therefore such persons have to be avoided from the administrative body in terms of the provisions of the bye-law.

6. If nominations have been received contrary to law or the bye-laws and if any person who succeeds in the election was disqualified, that is a matter that can be agitated in an election dispute under Section 69 of the Act. There could be no dispute on this. Therefore, any disqualification or incompetence of any candidate, including on any ground referable to any proceeding under Section 32 are matters that could be raised only after the election and is not a matter germane for decision in this writ petition.

7. The only question that