O. P. SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No 1 to register the petitioners Co-operative Society as an apex Society under the u. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. ( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is Poorvanchal Hathkargha Sahakari Sangh Ltd varanasi. The petitioner No. 2 is Shri Haseen Ahmad, Mukhya Pravartak of the Co-operative Society. On 13th May, 1981 the petitioners gave an application for registration of petitioner No. 1 as an apex society. Annexure 1 is a copy of the resolution passed in this connection on 4th April, 1981. The petitioners were informed by the Deputy Registrar Industries (Handloom), Kanpur that the number of members be increased and the area of operation should be whole of Uttar Pradesh. Another meeting of the Society was held on 20th February, 1982 and the defects pointed out were removed. Annexure 2 is the copy of the proceedings. Resolution No. 3 provided for the extension of the activities of the petitioner No. 1 throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh. Another apex society known as U. P. Silk Weavers Co-operative Association was registered as an apex Society on 16th June, 1971. The object of petitioner No. 1, co-operative Society, was similar to the object of the other apex society. The petitioners application for registration was rejected by the Deputy Registrar industries (Handloom), Kanpur on the ground that there is a Government order on account of which it is not possible to register another apex society for operation in the same area. Annexure 3 is the copy of the order. The petitioners application for registration was rejected by the Deputy Registrar industries (Handloom), Kanpur on the ground that there is a Government order on account of which it is not possible to register another apex society for operation in the same area. Annexure 3 is the copy of the order. ( 3 ) THE petitioners case is that petitioner No. 1 is an apex society as defined in section 2 (a-4) (10) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1963, that the District Weavers Co-operative Society, Ghazipur, which is a central seciety and other primary societies are members of the petitioners society, that the reason givea for refusal to register petitioner No. 1 is erroneous, that the respondents had already registered U. P. Handloom Fabrics Marketing Cooperative federation Ltd. Pilikothi, Varanasi, that there was already U. P. Silk Weavers Co-operative Association, Varanasi, and if this reasoning was correct, the respondents could not register the U. P. Handloom Fabrics Marketing co-operative Federation Ltd. that there is no such limitation prescribed under the law, and that the petitioner No. 1 has been wrongfully refused registration. ( 4 ) THE petition was contested by respondents on the pleas that as petitioner no. 1 is not a registered co-operative society, the petition is not maintainable, that an alternative remedy exists under Section 98 (2) (a) of the U. P. Cooperative societies Act, 1965, that the petitioners could not file the present petition without exhausting the said alternative remedy, that the U. P. Hand-loom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Federation Ltd. Pilikothi, Varanasi was registered on 14-4-82, that the U. P. Silk Weavers Co-operative Association ltd. , Varanasi existed with multifarious objects but did not encourage the promotion of the silk industry as a whole, that it was for this reason that U. P. Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Federation Ltd. Varanasi was registered and that it was not obligatory for the Registrar to consider and accept the proposal if he found that the proposal was not in order. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel. ( 5 ) SECTION 2 (a-4) (10) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 provides as below :"2 (a-4) apex Society, apex level society or state level Co-operative society means (10) any other ceatral co-operative society fulfilling the following conditions : (i) it includes in its membership at least one other central cooperative society ia the same line of business or trade; and (ii) its area of operation covers the whole of Uttar Pradesh, and (iii) its primary object is to facilitate the operation of the cooperative societies affiliated to it as ordinary members. " ( 6 ) IT is not disputed that one central co-operative society is a member of petitioner No. 1, Annexure 1 is the copy of the proceedings dated 4th April, 1981, Annexure 2 is the copy of the proceedings dated 20th February, 1982. The name of Moulvi Abdul Wahid as a representative of M/s District Weavers co-operative Society Ltd. , Ghazipur appears at serial No. 11 in both the proceedings. There is also a supplementary affidavit of Rais Ahmad, which was filed on 17th January, 1985 in which this fact has been sworn. ( 7 ) RESOLUTION No. 3 of the proceedings dated 20th February, 1982, vide copy Annexure 2, shows that the area of the operation of petitioner No. 1 extends to the whole of Uttar Pradesh. ( 8 ) RESOLUTION No. 4 of the proceedings dated 4th April, 1981, vide annexure 1, shows that the primary object of petitioner No. 1 is to facilitate operation of the co-operative societies affiliated to it as ordinary members. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents did not seriously dispute that petitioner No. 1 fulfils the requirements of an apex society as provided in section 2 (a-4) (10) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. ( 10 ) WE do not find any substance in the plea that this petitioa is not maintainable as the petitioner No. 1 has not been registered so far. The petition hag been filed by petitioner No. 2, Shri Haseen Ahmad, Mukhya Pravartak and even if petitioner No. 1 may not be entitled to sue, the petitioner No. 2 is certainly entitled to sue. The petition hag been filed by petitioner No. 2, Shri Haseen Ahmad, Mukhya Pravartak and even if petitioner No. 1 may not be entitled to sue, the petitioner No. 2 is certainly entitled to sue. ( 11 ) WE find no justification for the discrimination made by the respon-deats in refusing to register petitioner No. 1 while permitting registration of u. P. Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Federation Ltd. , Pilikothi, varanasi. If the policy decision was not to register two apex societies with similar objects for the same area, the respondents should have refused registration to U. P. Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Federation Ltd. , pilikothi, Varanasi also. Para 11 of the counter affidavit shows that U. P. Silk weavers Co-operative Association Ltd. , Varanasi already existed with multifarious objects when the U. P. Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative federation Ltd. , was registered. There is no evidence to substantiate the plea that U. P. Silk Weavers Co-operative Federation Ltd. , Varanasi did not encourage the promotion of the silk industry as a whole and this could be a justification for registering U. P. Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative federation Ltd. ( 12 ) THE respondents did not file the copy of the Government order laying policy decision in pursuance of which registration of petitioner No: 1 was refused as annexure to the counter affidavit. The respondents were given time to file a copy of the order, but they have not done so. We have not, thus, bean ia a position of perusing for ourselves the Government order referred to above by respondent No. 1 in the order vide copy Annexure 3. ( 13 ) WE find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any such provision in the U. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1965, the Government could not issue any such order restricting the registration of only one co-operative society with a similar object for one area. Every co-operative society functions for the betterment of its own mem-bers and such a restriction could neither be considered reasonable nor legal. ( 14 ) WE find no substance in the contention that the petition is not main-tainable as the petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy provided for under Section 98 (2) (a) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The appeal under the said provisions lies to the State Government. ( 14 ) WE find no substance in the contention that the petition is not main-tainable as the petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy provided for under Section 98 (2) (a) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The appeal under the said provisions lies to the State Government. If there is a government order, as stated in the impugned order, vide copy Annex ure 3, there could hardly be any point in filing an appeal before the State Govern-ment. An alternative remedy is not a bar where the alternative remedy is less convenient, beneficial or effectual or where the impugned order is likely to cause undue harassment. ( 15 ) WE are, thus, satisfied that there could be no reasonable ground for the respondents to refuse registration to petitioner No. 1 and the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal. ( 16 ) THE petition is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed to register the petitioner No. 1 Poorvanchal Hathkargha Sahakari Sangh Ltd as an apex society within two months of she presentation of the capy of this order. ( 17 ) A copy of the order will be issued to the petitioners on payment of usual charges within three days. .