By the Court.—We have heard Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Dinesh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Determination of Constituencies published in the Daily Newspaper “Amar Ujala” dated 12.1.2013 on the ground that the mistakes have been committed in the determination of the constituencies.

3. Raising a preliminary objection, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submit that the election process has already commenced and the elections are scheduled to take place on 29.1.2013, and in the circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Dinesh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as illegalities have been committed in the determination of constituencies, which is the foundation for the entire exercise of holding election, this Court may interfere in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submission:

1. Parmeshwar Mahaseth and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1958 Pat 149.

2. Umakant Singh and others v. Binda Choudhary and others, AIR 1965 Pat 459.

3. The Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and another v. Radhey Shyam Dani, AIR 1957 SC 304.

4. K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and others, AIR 1977 SC 1703.

5. Bar Counsel of Delhi and another v. Surjeet Singh and others, AIR 1980 SC 1612.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. From perusal of the Writ Petition and Annexures thereto, it is evident that the election process has already started, and the elections are due to take place on 29.1.2013 and 30.1.2013.

8. In our opinion, as the election process has already commenced, it will not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to create hindrance in the ongoing election process.

9. It is note worthy that Rule 444-C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 provides as under:

“444C (1) The election in a co-operative society shall not be called in question either by arbitration or otherwise except on the ground that :

(a) the election has not been a fair election by reasons that corrupt practice, bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, or

(b) the result of the election has been materially affected -

(i) by improper acceptance or rejection of nomination, or

(ii) by improper reception, refusal or rejection of voters, or

(iii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the society.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this rule corruption, bribery or undue influence shall have the meaning assigned to each under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(2) A dispute relating to election shall be referred by the aggrieved party within forty-five days of the declaration of the result.”

10. In view of the provisions of the above-quoted Rule, it is evident that after conclusion of the election, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the election in the Co-operative Society on the grounds mentioned in the Rule.

11. One of the grounds for questioning the election in a Co-operative Society is that the result of the election has been materially affected by gross failure to compl