Order : ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The instant petitioner has ben filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 whereby the respondent No.1- Registrar, Firms and society through the Assistant Registrar passed an order and directed the petitioner to initiate elections and directed the respondent No. 4 to conduct the election under the provisions of the bye-laws under Section 5(A)(B) and (C) and also the provision of clause 11 within a period of 45 days. Against this order, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: 10.1. To call for the entire records pertaining to the cse of the petitioner from the respondents. 10.2. That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and Annexure P/11 dated 23.07.2025. 10.3. That the respondents be issued suitable direction to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of President due to petitioner is an elected and extended in the general meeting. 10.4. Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner Sangh is registered under the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973 having registration No.33/1961 and office situated at Bhamashah Hospital, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). The petitioner framed bye laws in the name of Chhattigarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh for the whole state of Chhattisgarh and approved by the Deputy Registrar, Firms and Society Naya Raipur and the bye-laws was amended from time to time. The petitioner was elected as President of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh in the year 2022 and the tenure of the petitioner is from 16.04.2022 to 16.04.2025 and the election report was submitted by the Petitioner Sangh before the Registrar office under Section 27 and 28 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973. The petitioner was elected as President of Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh in the year 2022 and the tenure of the petitioner is from 16.04.2022 to 16.04.2025 and the election report was submitted by the Petitioner Sangh before the Registrar office under Section 27 and 28 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973. The Petitioner Sangh continued to work as President and on 07.01.2025, general body meeting was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Pradehs Sahu Sangh at Rajim and decision was taken in respect of the amendment in bye law as well as the election proceedings and resolution was passed from amendment in the election procedure directing to constitute an amended committee and also directed that the election has to be completed within a period of six months. The petitioner Sangh submitted the detailed amendment before the Registrar under Sections 27 & 28 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973 and as per the amendment, election office has been nominated by the Sangh. By order dated 15.04.2025, the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh submitted the application for extension of tenure of executive body for a period of six months and vide order dated 30.04.2025, issued a common notification to all the 36 district level Sahu Sanghs for the elections and the election proceeding began from 1 st May 2025 to be held in four layers and has appointed Chief Election Officer as well as Assistant Election Officer. Some complaints were made by the members of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh, Raipur before the Deputy Registrar and notice was issued to the President, Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh to which the President submitted his reply before the Assistant Registrar. 3. The petitioner Sangh has already published the schedule for election vide order dated 30.04.2025 stating that some of the members without following the bye laws and without calling the existence/elected executive body constituted a steering committee on 03.05.2025 and a coordination committee on 13.05.2025. Again some of the members without intimation of the existing elected body, called a general meeting on 11.07.2025 and issued notice on 07.04.2025. The petitioner Sangh submitted its reply mentioning that the Committee constituted for the resolution of the dispute between the members but the Committee interrupted in the election proceedings and the Assistant Registrar without considering the ground raised by the petitioner Sangh in his reply dated 12.07.2025 and 09.05.2025. The petitioner Sangh submitted its reply mentioning that the Committee constituted for the resolution of the dispute between the members but the Committee interrupted in the election proceedings and the Assistant Registrar without considering the ground raised by the petitioner Sangh in his reply dated 12.07.2025 and 09.05.2025. Once the election proceeding has been initiated, the authority cannot interfere but the Assistant Registrar passed the impugned order and direction the Steering Committee to conduct the election within a period of 45 days. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner Sangh. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Registrar through Assistant Registrar has passed the order and directed the petitioner to initiate election and directed the respondent No.4 to conduct the elections under the provisions of the bye-laws 5(A)(B) and (C) and also the provisions of Clause 11 within a period of 45 days though the petitioner Sangh has already issued the schedule for conducting the election of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh therefore, the conduct of the Assistant Registrar and the schedule for the election procedure has already been published by the petitioner Sangh and subsequently without any reason, the Assistant Registrar has directed the respondent No.4 to conduct the lection within 45 days which is illegal and arbitrary. He has relied upon the decisions of the coordinate bench in batch of petitions ie. WPC Nos. 1721 of 2020 dated 04.01.2021 and WPC No. 48 of 2023 dated 26.07.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the State as well as the respondents No.3 & 4 contended that they have three main objections: i) the first objection raised against the petitioner is that the petitioner Sangh has no locus to challenge the order impugned dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) because the tenure of the petitioner which commenced on 16 th April 2022 stood concluded on 16 th April 2025. ii) the second objection raised by the respondent is that there is alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 to file appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority. ii) the second objection raised by the respondent is that there is alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 to file appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority. iii) third objection raised by the respondent/authority is that the election process has already been initiated and there is no pleading on behalf of the petitioner that the extension of 6 months’ period to Sahu Sangh has been approved by the CG Pradesh Sahu Sangh through general body and there is no resolution of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh authorizing Shri Tahal Singh Sahu to file petition before this Court as it is registered society. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and the annexures as well as the reply filed by the respondents. The bye-laws registered under the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973 having registration No.33/1961 ^^ la’kksf/kr fu;ekoyh^^ Clause 12 reads as under: ^^izca/k dk;Zdkfj.kh dk dk;Zdky %& izns’k@ftyk@rglhy@ifj{ks=@xzkeh.k lkgw la?k dk dk;Zdky& 1- izR;sd bZdkbZ dk dk;Zdky rhu o"kZ dk gksxkA fo’ks"k ifjfLFkfr esa izca/k dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr ds fu.kZ; vuqlkj c<k;h tk ldsxh A fdUrq mDr vof/k 6 ekg ls vf/kd ugha gksxh A bl gsrq laj{kd eaMy dk vuqeksnu vfuok;Z gksxkA There is no pleading on behalf of the petitioner that the proposal for extension of six months time as a President of the Sangh has been approved by the general body of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh. It is also pertinent to mention that the tenure of the petitioner Sangh as President was commenced on 16 th April 2022 stood concluded on 16 th April 2025 and there is no authorization letter issued by the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Sahu Sangh to file this petition. 7. Section 32 of the Enquiry and Settlement of Disputes under the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 contains a specific provision in this regard which is reproduced as under: “ 32. Enquiry and Settlement of disputes :- 1. The Registrar may, on his own motion or on an application made under sub-section (2) either by himself or by a person authorized by him, by order in writing, hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society. 2. Enquiry and Settlement of disputes :- 1. The Registrar may, on his own motion or on an application made under sub-section (2) either by himself or by a person authorized by him, by order in writing, hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society. 2. An enquiry of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) shall be held on [the application together with an affidavit in support of its contents] of - (a) a majority of members of the governing body of the society; or (b) not less than one-third of the total number of members of the society. 3. the Registrar or the person authorized by him under sub-section (1) shall for the purpose of an enquiry under this section have the following powers, namely :- (a) he shall at all times have free access to the books, account, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to, or in the custody of, the society and may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, account, document, securities, cash or other properties to produce the same, if they relate to the head office of the society at any place at the headquarter thereof and if they relate to any branch of the society, at any place in the town wherein such branch thereof is located or in his own office. (b) he may summon any person who he has reason to believe has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof or in his own office and may examine such person on oath; and (c) (i) he may notwithstanding any regulation or bye laws specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the society, require the officers of the society to call a general meeting of the society at such time at the head office of the society or at any other place at the headquarter of the society and to determine such matters as may be directed by him and where the officers of the society refuse or fail to call such a meeting, he shall have power to call it himself; (ii) any meeting called under sub-clause (I) shall have all the powers of a general meeting called under the regulations or bye-laws of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by such bye-law. (4) When an enquiry is made under this Section the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the society and may issue appropriate directions to the society, which shall be binding on all the parties concerned.” 8. Therefore as per Section 32 of the said Adhiniyam 1973, the power is vested with the Registrar to decide the dispute with regard to election. So far as the passing of order by the Assistant Registrar and directing the petitioner to initiate elections and direct the respondent No. 4 to conduct the election under the provisions of the bye-laws under Section 5(A)(B) and (C) is concerned, it is a matter of significance that an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 wherein the petitioner has the liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent authority and raise all such objections. In the matter of Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and Others , (2016) 4 SCC 429 , the Apex Court has held in para 15 as under: “15. In the matter of Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and Others , (2016) 4 SCC 429 , the Apex Court has held in para 15 as under: “15. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election programme on 27.01.2011 and more particularly, when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent No.1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to the eligibility of respondent No.1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent NO.1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, ion out opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments refered to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with the by courts, possibly no election would be completed without the court’s order. Very often, for frivolous reasons, candidates or other approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.” 9. If the process of election is interfered with by the court, possibly there would be a situation where no election can be concluded without judicial intervention thereby defeating the very objet of holding free and fair elections within a stipulated timeframe. If the process of election is interfered with by the court, possibly there would be a situation where no election can be concluded without judicial intervention thereby defeating the very objet of holding free and fair elections within a stipulated timeframe. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a well settled proposition of law that once the election process has commenced, the Courts ought to exercise judicial restrain and refrain from interfering with the electoral process, as any such intervention at this stage would impede the democratic process and contravene the established principle of election jurisprudence. This Court has taken a view that all the disputes with regard to election should be dealt with after completion of the election. 10. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of and interim stay stands vacated.