The main legal principle established in the judgment is that once the notification for holding elections is issued, the Court should not interfere with the election process, and the aggrieved party must challenge the result of the election by filing the appropriate petition before the appropriate forum.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a direction to the District Collector/returning Officer to include certain members for the purpose of participation in the election of the District cooperative Bank Limited, Ghazipur and to quash the order dated 23. 03. 2005.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that there is a Cooperative Society, namely Sadhan Sahakari Limited, Mania Block Bhadaura, District Ghazipur. On 23rd March, 2005, a provisional voters list was ratified for the purposes of holding election of the cooperative Societies which did not contain the name of the petitioners Society, as it had been shown as a defaulter. The said list had been made final and the petitioners Society has not been included in the voter list for the reason that vide order dated 23. 03. 2005, the said Society has been shown to be a defaulter. Hence, this petition.

( 3 ) SHRI J. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the findings recorded by the authority concerned in its order dated 23. 03. 2005 that the Society is a defaulter, is factually not correct. Petitioners Society is not a defaulter. Therefore, the petitioners Society should be permitted to participate in, the forthcoming election.

( 4 ) SHRI C. K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that once the notification of the election has been issued, the writ Court has to keep its hands off and should not entertain a writ petition particularly for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion of any ones name in the voter list. If the petitioners are so aggrieved, they must wait for the result of the election and challenge the same subsequently before the appropriate forum but no relief can be granted at this stage and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) THE issue involved herein is no more res-integra.

( 7 ) IN Suresh Kumar Tyagi v. Krishna Kumar and Ors. , AIR 1995 Alld. 57, while dealing with the election for the Committee of Management of a Credit Society under the provisions of U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act 1965) and the U. P. Cooperative societies Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called the Rules 1968), this Court held that the general principles of election law are applicable in the case of Cooperative Society and once the notification has been issued, the Court cannot interfere. The only remedy available to the person aggrieved is to challenge the result showing that it has materially affected by action or inaction on the part of the authority concerned. While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed on large number of judgments of the Honble Apex Court particularly in N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64; S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, air 1988 SC 616; A. K. M. Hassan Uzzaman v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 218; Dhartipakar madanlal Agarwal v. Sri Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577; and Gujarat University v. N. U. Rajguru, AIR 1988 SC 66. In all the aforesaid cases, it has categorically been held that the High court should be very cautious and slow and should keep its hands off and should not generally interfere with the election process. The person who is aggrieved by any order of any authority, for any reason, whatsoever, must wait till the election result is declared and the only remedy for him is to challenge the same by filing the election petition before the appropriate forum. The said judgment was rendered interpreting the provisions of Rule 444-C of the Rules 1968, which are involved in the case in hand.

( 8 ) ANOTHER Division Bench of this Court in R. P. Singh Baghel v. City Magistrate/election officer, Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors. , 1988 (1) AWC 503, considering similar provisions followed the earlier judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Tyagi (supra), and