Judgment This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders contained in Annexure 3', by which the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Intensive Agricultural Development Programme, Lauriya. District Champaran has held that the election of petitioners 1 and 2 as Secretary and delegate, in the meeting held on 15th July, 1977 is void and that therefore, the Managing Committee elected in that meeting and another Managing Committee elected in the meeting held on the 25th December, 1977 should merge and there after a fresh election should take place. 2. The petitioners challenge this order firstly because the ground assigned by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is said to be wholly illegal and, therefore, the order was bad in law and secondly on the ground, as would appear on a perusal of annexures 2 and 3 that the entire order sheet of the case referred to the Assistant Registrar challenging the election, bad been interpolated and changed so that no sanctity could be attached to the Impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the entertainment of this writ application, firstly on the ground that in terms of sub-section (6) or section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act 6 of 1935) an appeal lay against the impugned order to the Registrar. An alternative remedy being thus available, this application must not be entertained. The other reason in this regard, as stated by learned counsel for the respondents is, that now the other ejection has already taken place on the 31st October, 1978, of which the petitioners had due notice. Even if a writ is issued quashing the impugned order, it would be just infructuous. It has further been submitted that in (act since the petitioners had notice of the said meeting, the petitioners should have made the persons elected in that meeting parties to this writ petition and they should have further challenged the election held on the said date, namely. 31st October, 1978. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the respondents that the application must fail. 4. We think the contention raised on behalf of tile respondents is valid and must prevail. 5. 31st October, 1978. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the respondents that the application must fail. 4. We think the contention raised on behalf of tile respondents is valid and must prevail. 5. Some facts relating to this case need be stated: Petitioners 1 and 2 claim to be the Secretary and delegate respectively of petitioner no. 3, which is a multi-purpose Co-operative Society registered as the Dumra Deoraj Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Ltd. Lauriya within the district of West Champaran. This Society after being duly registered, held its first annual general meeting in the year 1970 for the purpose of electing the members of its Managing Committee. At the usual intervals of three co-operative years, such annual general meetings continued to be held until the year 1977 relating to which the dispute has arisen. According to the petitioners the general meeting was held on the 15th July, 1917, in which the members of the Managing Committee were elected, petitioner no. 1 being elected as the Secretary and petitioner no. 2 as the delegate of Harinagar C.D. & C.M. Union Ltd., Harinagar to the Central Co-operative Union. According to the respondents, however, the general meeting was held on the 25th December, 1977, in which respondent no. 2 was elected the Secretary as also the delegate to the said Harinagar Central Union. Thus a dispute having arisen, it was referred to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies under section 48 of the said Co-operative Societies Act. It is not clear as to how the matter came to be dealt with by the Assistant Registrar, but all the same, the dispute which had been referred has in fact been decided by the order contained in annexure 3 by the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar held that the annual general meeting held on 15th December, 1970 was illegal, because there had been violation of specific rules in electing the Managing Committee members. Such violation had been committed initially at the first annual general meeting and which illegality was continued thereafter. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order have sought quashing of the orders contained in annexure 3'. 6. Such violation had been committed initially at the first annual general meeting and which illegality was continued thereafter. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order have sought quashing of the orders contained in annexure 3'. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, as already stated, has assailed the order contained in annexure ‘3’, firstly on the ground that the reason given by the Assistant Registrar for setting aside the election held at the annual general meeting of 15th July, 1977 was illegal and invalid and consequently the order itself became invalid and, secondly that no sanctity could be attached to the order contained in annexure 3' because of the clear interpolation made in the entire case. It may be stated that the dispute had been registered as election dispute case no. 28 of 1978-79. 7. As against these arguments, learned counsel for the respondents raised certain preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ application, the objections being, as already stated, that since an appeal lay to the Registrar in terms of sub-section (6) of section 48, which remedy the petitioner had not availed of, the writ petition must not be entertained. The other preliminary objection is that no writ should issue, because it will become infructuous; another election having already taken place on the 31st October, 1978 in which fresh members of the Managing Committee had been elected and that election had not been challenged in this writ application, 8. I can quite appreciate the first contention raised by the petitioners that the reasons given by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies for setting aside the election held at the annual general meeting of the 15th July, 1977 was no reason. The reason as given by the Assistant Registrar, in fact affects even those election which was not the subject matter of dispute before him. Therefore, so far as this part of the petitioner contention is concerned, it may be valid. So far as the second part of the contention, namely, interpolation of the entire order sheet is concerned, it is not valid. A part of the order sheet is contained in annexure 2' Annexure 3' is the order passed by the Assistant Registrar in the election dispute case no. 28 of 1978-79. So far as the second part of the contention, namely, interpolation of the entire order sheet is concerned, it is not valid. A part of the order sheet is contained in annexure 2' Annexure 3' is the order passed by the Assistant Registrar in the election dispute case no. 28 of 1978-79. In course of the order (annexure 3) the Assistant Registrar has noticed some portions of the order contained in the order sheet, a part of which is annexure 2' and has quoted them in his order. The reference to the particular orders, as contained in annexure 2' in the order contained in annexure 3' does not make annexure 3 a portion of the order sheet. Those portions of the orders cannot be read as substitute to the orders passed on the respective dates as contained is annexure 2'. This contention must therefore, be rejected as based upon a mis-appreciation of the actual fact. 9. Applying ourselves now to the arguments made on behalf of the respondents, we think the preliminary objections taken by learned counsel for the respondents must prevail. By virtue of the provisions contained in Article 226 (3) of the Constitution, barring a writ against violation of any fundamental right, if there is an alternative remedy available, a well would not be maintainable. In the instant case, interms of sub-section (6) of section 48 of the Co-operative Societies Act, an appeal lay to the Registrar against the, impugned order Subsection (6) of section 48 of the said Act is in the following terms:- "Any person aggrieved by any decision given in dispute transferred or referred under Cl. (b) or (c) of sub-section (2) may, within three months from the date of such decision. appeal to the Registrar", Sub clause (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 48 are to the following effect:- "(2) The Registrar may on receipt of such reference- (b) transfer it for disposal to any person exercising the powers of a Registrar in this behalf, or (c) subject to any rules, refer it for disposal to an arbitrator or arbitrators." Reading these provisions, in substance they mean that if the decision in dispute is by an authority to whom the dispute has been transferred for disposal by the Registrar, such decision can be appealed against before the Registrar. 10. 10. In the instant case, as it appears from the averment in the petitioners petition itself that the person who has given the decision in the dispute is not the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies but a person appointed to assist the Registrar. When such a person has given the decision in dispute, appeal to the Registrar would definitely lie in terms of sub-section (6) of section 48 of the said Act. The petitioners having not availed of that opportunity cannot come to this Court for seeking a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Quite apart from the above, it is an uncontroverted fact that an annual general meeting was held on the 31st October, 1978 for electing members of the Managing Committee afresh and the election has in fact been held petitioners nos. 1 and 2, both had the notice of the said annual general meeting. So that now the position is that even if a writ is issued quashing the orders contained in annexure 3', it will serve no purpose, because a fresh election has already taken place electing the members of the Managing Committee, which ejection has remained Unchallenged. 12. Having regard to these aspects of the matter we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently the application is dismissed but without costs. Application dismissed.