The High Court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging election disputes in Co-operative Societies is barred during the election process due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Dr. T.N. Singh, J.

1. By this Order we propose to dispose of eight petitions. Other seven, besides this, are : Misc. Petitions Nos. 1293, 1307, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1365 and 1367 of 1988. Indeed, in these several petitions we have taken the view that the preliminary objection to their maintainability has to be upheld.

2. In all these matters the common factual premise is that petitioners in each case made bid to be nominated for election in different Co-operative Societies. Their nomination papers having been rejected, they have come before us with the common complaint that the election process in each case is vitiated in the particular facts and circumstances of each case. However, the fortuitous circumstance dominating the common complaint to be read in each of these cases is that in each case there was a large number of nomination papers, more than the number of seats to be filled up. After scrutiny had taken place, the number of nomination papers which were found valid conformed in number to the seats to be filled up. As a result, the persons whose nomination papers had been found valid were declared elected unopposed.

3. While entertaining these petitions doubt was entertained about fairness of the election process because of the peculiar circumstances of the cases which apparently projected a case of mass rejection and singular acceptance raising a presumption of oblique motive of the Election Officer in each case. However, in each case return has now come and position on facts is made clear. It is not disputed today in each of these cases that the Election Officer had passed orders rejecting separately the nomination papers which were found invalid by giving reasons separately in case of each of the nomination paper rejected.

4. Our attention is drawn to the relevant statutory provisions bearing on the controversy. We have read Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act') and we have also read the relevant Rules framed under the Act viz., Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (for short the 'Rules'). The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the proviso to sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Act ousts Registrar's jurisdiction to deal with an election dispute during the period of commencement and continuation of election process till declaration of the result of the election. Therefore, in each case, the result of the election not having been published and the Registrar not having jurisdiction on that account to hear the "dispute", the controversy raised in these petitions has to be decided by this Court To analyse and dispose of this contention we extract relevant portions of the said provision:

64. Disputes. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parries to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following:

XXX XXX XXX XXX

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a dispute shall include--

XXX XXX XXX XXX

(v) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society or representative of the society or of composite society:

Provided that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the announcement of the election programme till the declaration of result.

5. The non obstante clause which crowns the provision, makes the legislative intent clear beyond dispute. We have no doubt that for the matters enumerated in Section 64 the Legislature provided special forum and the Legislature intended that those matters have to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions prescribed by it The object of the proviso, in our opinion, is not at all ambiguous and no amount of reliance thereon would avail the petitioners. It is not the purport of the proviso that any "dispute" in connection with any "election" to the co-o