ORDER
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. The petitioner is a Member of Primary Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Atarikhejda, District Vidisha, which is a primary co-operative society registered under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). He has filed this writ petition challenging the elections for the Cooperative Society held in February, 2007. Though he has taken several grounds in the writ petition, the main grounds taken are that the election programme declared by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the concerned Election Officer is contrary to Rule 41 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules’) and the voter-list was not prepared as per provisions of Rule 23 of the said Rules.
2. In a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam Sharma v. Chairman, Sewa/Vriha Sahakari Samiti, Lashkar, Gwalior and Ors. 1989 MPLJ 208, the provisions of Section 64 of the Act and in particular Sub-section (2)(v) thereof were noticed and it was held that if any candidate has any grievance with respect to the conduct of the election, he shall have the right to file an election petition for the redressal of his grievance before the Registrar in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Act and therefore, the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere in such matters relating to election disputes of societies unless and until it is shown to the Court that the election process is so vitiated that it cannot be said to be an election held in accordance with the law.
3. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, we put a query to Mr. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner why the petitioner has not filed an election dispute and has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Saxena submitted that Rule 23(3)(j) of the Rules provided that the voter-list finally prepared by the Returning Officer shall be final. He submitted that since there was a finality attached to the voter-list prepared by the Returning Officer, the Registrar cannot decide the validity of the final voter-list so prepared by the Election Officer in an election process.
4. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Saxena. Sub-section (2)(v) of Section 64 of the Act under which the Registrar entertains an election dispute is quoted hereinbelow:
64. Disputes.-(1) …
(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), a dispute shall include-
…
(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 the results.
5. The language of the aforesaid provision in Section 64 of the Act makes it clear that for purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are those among mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 64 further states that for the purpose of Sub-section (1), a dispute will include matters relating to those mentioned in Clauses (i) to (v). Language of Section 64(2)(v) quoted above, would show that ‘any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society’ can be entertained by the Registrar. Hence, disputes relating to the voter-list such as inclusion of wrong persons in the voter-list or exclusion of proper persons from the voter-list will be covered within the expression ‘any dispute arising in connection with election of any officer of the society’ to be decided by the Registrar under Sub-section (2)(v) of Section 64 of the Act.
6. In Shri Sunt Sadguru Janardan Swami (Mohangiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , the High Court had refused to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that Section 144T of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 provided that any dispute relating to election shall be referred to a Tribunal. In the challenge to the order passed by the High Court refusing to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a contention was raised that the High Court should not have refused to entertain the writ petition because a dispute relating to the preparation of voter-list could not be challenged before the Tribunal under Section 144T of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as a voter-list, once prepared, was final. The Supreme Court repelled the aforesaid contention and held, relying on its earlier decisions, that the electoral roll can also be challenged before the Tribunal on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or any rule thereunder, as provided in Rule 81 of the Rules made under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
7. Similarly, considering the wide language used in Sub-section (2)(v) of Section 64 of the Act, we have no doubt in our mind that a dispute relating to voter-list being a dispute arising in connection with election of an officer of a society can also be referred to the Registrar and the provision in Rule 23(3)(j) of the Rules saying that the voter list prepared by the Returning Officer will be final will not be a bar for entertaining such a dispute by the Registrar.
8. Mr. Saxena then submitted that since the petitioner has also challenged the election programme issued by the Registrar as being contrary to the rules, liberty should be given to the petitioner to file a dispute before the Tribunal instead of the Registrar. Whether the petitioner files a dispute before the Registrar or before the Tribunal, is entirely the option of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to decide to file the dispute either before the Registrar or the Tribunal as may be advised. But we hasten to add that it is for the Tribunal to decide whether it has the jurisdiction and should exercise its jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to voter-list and/or election programme, if filed by the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.