The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition on interference in the election process once it has commenced, as well as the detailed procedure for membership and election process under the M. P. Co-oprative Societies Act.

( 1 ) PETITIONER challenges the order dated 1-11-2001 passed by the M. P. Co-oprative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") on the ground of jurisdictional competence to interfere once the election process had commenced.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of M. P. Co-oprative Secieties Act. Petitiner-society received application of 24 persons for admitting them to the membership of the society; their forms were found to be defective, therefore, they were rejected. Two revisions were filed before the Tribunal revision Nos. 166 and 177. They were decided by the common order dated 11-9-2001 (Annexurep/1 ). The revisions were allowed and the order dated 2-12-2000 passed by the committee was quashed and it was directed that petitioner should again submit their application in the prescribed form and deposit it to the co-operative society along with requiste amount of share capital, membership fee etc. After compliance of these directions, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been admitted as member in the co-oprative society. Thereafter the applications were filed for membership on 5-10-2001; petitioners submit that said applications were not in accordance with the prescribed form and the bye-laws of the society as contained in Annexure P/2. Same were considered and found to be defective. The applicants were asked to rectify the defects, but the defects were not removed. Letter was sent to each of the applicant to rectity the defects. Meanwhile, the elections of the society were notified and returning officer was appointed on 27-10-2001 by Deputy Registrar, Co-oprative Society, District Bhopal. As per election programme the list of members was to be supplied by the society to the election officer on 7-11-2001. List of voters was to be published by the election officer on 10-11-2001. Objections were to be invited on the list till 20/11/2001. Final voters list was to be published on 23-11-2001. Reservation was to be decided on 26-11-2001; meeting of general council was to be announced on 27-11-2001; nominations were to be accepted on 4-12 and 5-12-2001; scrutiny of nomination was to be held on 6-12-2001. Withdrawal of the nomination/allotment of the symbol and the final list of the candidates was to be published on 7-12-2001. Polling was to be held on 14-12-2001. Co-optation was to be made on 15-12-2001 and nomination on 16-12-2001. Since the applications for new membership were not allowed by the society on the ground that they were not complete, mattter again traveled to the Tribunal; revision No. 434/2001 was filed by Laxminarayan Sharma before the Tribunal which was dismissed on 22-11-2001 as per order Annexure P/6. The Tribunal refused to interfere on the ground that election process has commenced and no interference can be made by the Tribunal and objection was to be considered by the election officer. In para 10 of order P/6 following observations were made by the Tribunal : -" A perusal of the documents submitted by the non-applicats and in particular letter dated 23-10-2001 it appears that 21 deemed members have not yet completed the form in the manner as directed by the society inasmuch as they have not rectified the mistakes pointed out in this letter. It is a question of fact as to whether they have complied these directions and if so then they can be treated to be deemed members. Objection on this point is also pending before the election officer which is to be decided on 23-11-2001. While deciding this objection the learned election officer can go into this question and can take appropriate decisions. "the revision petition was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE election officer on 23-11-2001 passed the order Annexure P/7. Election officer found that the defect were not removed by the concerned members as such the persons who had applied on 5-10-2001 could not be treated as members. The matter was again taken to the Tribunal; the order passed by the election officer was challenged