( 1 ) THE above writ petition was filed along with W. P. No. 1270/1979 as a common petition. In W. P. No. 1270/1979 the petitioner was one Gangappa nagappa Danannavar. The petition came to be dismissed as not pressed on 25-1-1979. ( 2 ) IN this petition, therefore, only Vyavasaya Sahakari Sangha Ltd. , tarihal, by its representative Ninganagouda Basanagouda Patil, has challenged the correctness of the rejection of the nomination paper of ninganagouda Basanagouda Patil to the election to the Board of Directors of Malaprabha co-operative Sugar Factory Limited (1st respondent) for 1978-79 as per the calendar of events issued by the Returning Officer on 12-12-78. The returning Officer has been made, the 2nd respondent in this petition. On 25-1-1979 three more respondents were added by an amendment as respondents 3,4 and 5. For purposes of disposal of this writ petition, it is sufficient to refer to the 3rd respondent only who has filed an application I. A. No. I for vacating the interim stay order granted in this case. The interim stay of election to category 'c' members in Ext-A, the calendar of events was ordered on 25-1-79. On the same day, emergent notice was issued, to respondents 1 to 5 regarding the issue of rule. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in this petition has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Art 226 (b) and (c) of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction to quash the notice and calendar of events published by respondent-1 as Per Ext-A and also for the issue of a writ or direction to include the name of respondent-1 in class A of voters list of respondent-1 Society. As stated earlier, the Returning Officer on 23-1-79 rejected the nomination of the petitioner Society's representative in view of the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 27-10-78 bearing No. D|dsq!nbp|of[78-79. The said order was passed under Sec. 29-C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The said order is in the form of an endorsement in Ext-B. The order of the Joint Registrar referred to therein is set out below as the same was produced by respondent-3 as Ext. R1 to his application for vacating stay. "extract Copy of order No. D/dsq/nbp/of/78-79 dt. 27-10-78. The said order is in the form of an endorsement in Ext-B. The order of the Joint Registrar referred to therein is set out below as the same was produced by respondent-3 as Ext. R1 to his application for vacating stay. "extract Copy of order No. D/dsq/nbp/of/78-79 dt. 27-10-78. Preamble: order in exercise of the powers conferred Under S. 29 (C) (7) of K. C. S. Amendment) Act, 1975, read with S. 1/26a (l) of K. C. S. (Amendment) act, 1976 I. K. Venkataramiya, B. Sc. , HDC Joint Registrar of CS Belgaum division, Belgaum, disqualify the VSS Ltd. Tarihal, Taluka Belgaum, district Belgaum, for being elected or appointed, or continued as a member of the Committee of Management of the Belgaum DCC Ban' ltd. , Belgaum and thus the Tarihal VSS Ltd. , Tarihal Taluk Belgaum district Belgaum, shall not be eligible for a period of one year from the date of this order for re-election or appointment or as a member of the committee of management of the Belgaum DCC Bank Ltd. , Belgaum i further, by order remove the Tarihal VSS Ltd. , Tarihal, Taluka belgaum, District Belgaum from the Committee of Management of the belgaum, DCC Bank Ltd. , Belgaum, Shri Ninganagouda Basanago patil, the representative of the Tarihal VSS Ltd. , Tarihal on the Committee of Management of the Belgaum DCC Bank Limited Belgaum therefore stands removed from the Committee of Management of Belgaum dcc Bank Ltd. , Belgaum. Sd/ Joint Registrar of CS Belgaum Dn, Belgaum. " ( 4 ) THOUGH this petition appeared in the list of hearing cases set down in 'b' Group, the Counsel were permitted to address arguments along with other Counsel appearing on either side in several other writ petitions on the question of maintainability of the writ petition in view of the bar created by Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the Act provides for settlement of disputes regarding elctions under Sec. 70 of the Act read with Rule 30 of the Rules framed under the Act. I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary to refer to, the arguments founded on a catena of deeisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts supporting one or the other view. I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary to refer to, the arguments founded on a catena of deeisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts supporting one or the other view. It suffices to state that the law relating to the exercise, of of the jurisdiction of the High Courts in matters relating to the election to co-operative Societies, Local Boards, Village Panchayaths and other Local authorities is in a state of flux and nothing final appears to have been said on the question as to whether a writ should be refused in all cases when the relevant statute provides an alternative remedy. ( 5 ) IN this writ petition, the matter in dispute can be disposed of without reference to the question of maintainability on ground of existence of an alternative remedy. ( 6 ) TO go back to the facts of the instant case, it is necessary to summarise them as follows: The petitioner and respondent-1 are Societies registered under the Act. The petitioner Society is a 'c' class member of respond-1 Society. It filed its nomination through its representative to whom reference has been made earlier and that nomination came to be rejected for reasons already stated above. The representative of the petitioner-Society and petitioner in W. P. No. 1270179 looked at the voters list published and found that the name of the writ petitioner in W. P. No. 1270/79 was not included in the voters list. It is also alleged that on 13-1-79 the list of defaulters was put up on the, notice board of the 1st respondent Society in accordance with Rule 14 (a) (1) of the Rules framed under the Act. In the said list, the petitioner-Society was not included, as one of the defaulters and therefore the petitioner-Society whose representative's nomination paper came to be rejected for reasons stated earlier, has preferred this writ petition. ( 7 ) MR. In the said list, the petitioner-Society was not included, as one of the defaulters and therefore the petitioner-Society whose representative's nomination paper came to be rejected for reasons stated earlier, has preferred this writ petition. ( 7 ) MR. N. A. Mandagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Society, has strenuously urged that this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise juirsdiction under Art 226 and grant the writs or directions prayed for because, prima facie, once the petitioner-Society's name was not included in the list of defaulters as per list prepared by the 1st respondent-Society it was not open to the Registrar to question the validity of the nomination of its representative so long as the petitioner-Society was not a defaulter ac. cording to the published list. ( 8 ) SHRI W. K. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent, who was also one of the contestants for the vacant seat in the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent-Society contended, inter alia (1) that in this case the Court should not interfere, as there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner; and, (2) that in any event, even though the name of the petitioner Sod ety was not included in the list of defaulters, it was demonstrated according to Ext. Rl that the petitioner-Society had incurred disqualification under the statute, namely in terms of Sec. 29-C and as long as the order of the Joint Registrar stood, the disqualification of the Society was current and in force, and therefore, the Returning Officer was correct in rejecting the nomination filed on behalf of the petitioner-Society. ( 9 ) AT this stage, it is necessary to state briefly the previous history regarding the order at Ext-R1. ( 10 ) IN W. P. No. 13304|1978, the Society and the, present petitioner had challenged the order of the Addl. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Industrial and Miscellaneous) Bangalore, rejecting the application of the petitioner for the stay of the operation of the order at Ext. Rl in this petition. That petition came to be disposed of by Puttaswamy J. on 13-12-78 in the following terms:"the grievance of the petitioner, in this writ petition, is mainly confined to the action of respondent-2 in not posting the appeal for hearing. At my direction Shri B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court Government pleader, has taken notice for respondent No. 2. That petition came to be disposed of by Puttaswamy J. on 13-12-78 in the following terms:"the grievance of the petitioner, in this writ petition, is mainly confined to the action of respondent-2 in not posting the appeal for hearing. At my direction Shri B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court Government pleader, has taken notice for respondent No. 2. After contaction respondent No. 2 Shri Mand,appa submitted that the authority will take all necessary steps to post the appeal for hearing at an early date and dispose of the same with all expedition. In this view, I do not consider it necessary to issue rule nisi much less any writ or direction. Writ petition disposed of in the above terms. "on the date of the hearing of this writ petition, it was not known whether the registrar in question had disposed of the appeal filed against the older as per Ext. R-l. In other words, in the present state of things Mr. W. K. Joshi's contention is that the order of disqualificatior made, is in force and has to be accepted. ( 11 ) MR. Mandagi has, however, contended that, even if it were to bo assumed that the order at Ext. R1 disqualifying the Society is said to be in force, a detailed examination of the order itself would disclose that the disqualification pertains in respect of the Society mentioned in the order, that is to say that the disqualification prevents the petitioner-Society from having a representation for a period of one year from the date of the order to the Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , and by that order, shri Ninganagouda Basanagouda Patil, was removed from the Committes of Management of the said District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the disqualificatioin would not extend to any other Society to which the petitioner society may seek representation on its Managing Committee. Fur this contention he relies upon the language of S. 29-C (l) (a) of the Act, which is as follows: "29-C: Disqualification for membership of the Committee; - (1) no person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed or continued as a member of the committee if,- (a) he is in default to any Co-operative Society in respect of any dues from him either as borrower or as surety. Provided that a member of the Committee who has ceased to hold office as such under this clause shall not be eligible for 3 period of one year from the date on which he ceased to hold office for re-election or appointment as a member of the committee of such Co-operative society or of election or appointment to the committee of any other Co-operative society. " , '' it is Mr. Mandagi's contention that the proviso set out above clearly indicated that the disqualification would be operative for a period of one year from the date on which he ceased to hold office for re-election or appointment as a member of the Committee of such Co-operative Society his emphasis is on the clause "of such Co-operative Society and cm. the basis of such an interpretation, he said that the order is confined only in relation to the aforementioned Bqlgaum District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , and therefore would not act as a disqualification for the 1st respondent-Society in the present writ petition. Such a construction, in my opinion, is ex facie untenable haying regard to what fallows, the clause on which Mr. Mandagi has emphasised, The clause, "such Co-operative Society" is followed by "or of election or appointment to the Committee of any other Co-operative society" and this has to be read disjunctively forming part of the proviso. Thus read, the inevitable conclusion would be that the statutory disqualification under Sec. 29-C (1) extends not only to the specific Society in respect of which the disqualification order has been passed by the Registrar, but also the disqualification would extend to election or appointment to the committee of any other Co-operative Society. If this interpretation is not put on the proviso, then it would lead to the anomalous situation that a member who suffers from disqualification under Sec. 29-C, is capable of holding office or to be eligible for appointment as a member of the; committee of Management of another Society in spite of the disqualification incurred on account of his being a defaulter in any Co-operative Society under sec. 2s-C (1) (a) of the Act. 2s-C (1) (a) of the Act. This could not have been the intention of the legislature, because, the person is disqualified to hold a post on the Committee of Management of a Society to which he is a defaulter, that disqualification on the language of the proviso would extend and must extend to all co-operative, institutions in which he seeks appointment or election to the committee of Management. ( 12 ) IN this view of the matter, Mr. Joshi's submissions must prevail and mr. Mandagi's contentions, must be rejected, On the facts and circumstance of the case, the 2nd respondent-Returning Officer was correct in rejecting the nomination of the representative of the petitioner-Society as per his endorsement at Exhibit-B. ( 13 ) IN the result, this petition is without merit and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected without issuing Rule. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .