The election process of co-operative societies cannot be challenged during the election through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 28-B of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, which prohibits such challenges, is not ultra vires.

L. RATH, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of cases raises the question of entertainment of petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the process of election to the committee of management of different co-operative societies to have become vitiated either on account of illegal rejection of nomination papers or for illegal preparation of voter lists of the different constituencies for the purpose of election or for the illegal formation of constituencies. The facts pleaded by petitioners are of palpable illegality in rejection of the nomination papers or of valid members being left out from being included in the voter lists as a consequence of which they are deprived of contesting or voting in the election and therefore the entire election process to have become vitiated. A further allegation is made that different constituencies required to be formed were not done and instead were merged together to constitute a single constituency. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also that Section 28-B of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is ultra vires as it prohibits any challenge to the election process before the election is actually held and results are declared.

( 2 ) BEFORE such questions are taken up for consideration, a brief statement regarding the provisions of the Act as they now stand is necessary to be referred to. Prior to 11-10-1983, the election to the committee of management of the co-operative societies or of its office bearers was available to be challenged in a two-fold process, one by filing appeal before the Registrar under Section 109 (1) (e-1) of the Act and the other by filing dispute before the Registrar under Section 68, Explanation-IV. Because of such alternative procedures under the Act and confusion prevailing as to which of the forums to be availed of when in respect of the dispute, the matter was clarified by this Court in AIR 1981 Orissa 194 (Kapilendra v. Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Balasore Division) that all grievances arising in the election process prior to the declaration of the results could be raised only in appeal under Section 109 (1) (e-1) and that all disputes arising thereafter were to be raised as disputes under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. On 11-10-1993 Section 109 (1) (e-1) was repealed by Orissa Act 1983 and thereafter this Court has held in some cases that pre-election disputes are to be challenged in revision before the Registrar under Section 112 of the Act. While this position was continuing, Orissa Act 28 of 1991 was brought in on 31-12-1991 making extensive amendments to the statute inter alia inserting a new Section 28-B that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act and the Rules, the election process of a society, once started, shall not be held up, and no matter relating to election of the President or members of the committee of management shall be called in question before any authority under the Act until the declaration of the results of the election. By the same Act, a separate forum was also created under Section 67-B making provision for constitution of a tribunal to decide the disputes arising in connection with election of the office bearers of a society. Section 68 was also substituted by a new section in which, inter alia, the old Explanation-IV does not find place. Orissa Act 28/91 in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 1 thereof provided that the said Act shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act. By notification on 9/09/1992 published in the Extraordinary Orissa Gazette of 10/09/1992 the different provisions of the Act including Section 1 and Section 21 which inserted Section 28-B have been brought in force, but Section 37 of the Act which introduced Section 67-B has not been enforced. The net result therefore is that while the