SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 1358/86 (Abdulrahim s/o Ismail v. The Returning Officer and another ). ( 2 ) MANGILAL (Misc. Petition No. 1494/86) has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16-8-1986, whereby his nomination to the Slate Pencil Co-operative Society Ltd. , Mandsaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') was rejected. ( 3 ) INITIALLY 7 petitioners had filed Misc. Petition No. 1358/86, challenging the rejection orders dated 16-8-1986 of their nominations to that Society. Subsequently on an application filed on behalf of the petitioners 2 to 7, on their prayer, they were deleted vide order dated 8-9-86. ( 4 ) IN both these petitions notice to show-cause had been issued against the respondents. In Misc. Petition No. 1358/86, an interim exparte order appears to have been passed by the Bench 28-8-86, directing that "meanwhile the result of the election in the meeting to be held on 28-8-1986 shall not be declared till that date though the election may take place on that date". The date fixed on this stay application was 8-9-1986. By an order dated 8-9-1986 the stay order was directed to be continued till the next date, i. e. 24-9-86. On 24-9-86, the stay order was directed to be continued until further orders. This order was passed in presence of the counsel for respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 who was present in person. ( 5 ) IN Misc. Petition No. 1494/86 also an application for stay had been submitted. In that case, as it appears from the order-seet dated 27-9-86, an application had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite the said order, respondent No. 1 called the meeting on 29-9-86 for holding the election of the President and the Secretary, though results of the election have not yet been declared. On that date, the Bench had passed an order that "however, despite the stay order passed by this Court in Misc. Petition No. 1358/86, if respondent No. 1 shall hold the meeting on 29-9-86, he shall do so at his own risk". ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, reply/return had been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the aforesaid cases. On that date, the Bench had passed an order that "however, despite the stay order passed by this Court in Misc. Petition No. 1358/86, if respondent No. 1 shall hold the meeting on 29-9-86, he shall do so at his own risk". ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, reply/return had been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the aforesaid cases. Since, cousel for the parties had agreed that both the cases could be heard on merits, it was directed that the cases be listed fcr being heard on merits. In view of the grievance made by the petitioner in the two cases that copies of the opiginal orders were not being supplied, a direction had also been given to keep the original record available. Accordingly that record was kept available at the time of the hearing. ( 7 ) PETITIONER Mangilal was a member of the Managing Committee of the society, which was superseded under Section 53 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by an order dated 2-1-1985. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Board of Revenue, M. P. Gwalior. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the Managing Committee through mohammad Rafiq before the Gwalior Bench (Misc. Petition No. 550/85. By an order dated 22-2-1986, the petition was dismissed as infructuous, owing to the expiry of the original period of supersession. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, it has further been stated that against the said order dated 22-2-86 of the High Court, S. L. P. was filed by the Managing Committee through Mohammad Rafiq on 1-3-86, which was ultimately dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 8-8-86. ( 8 ) THE Joint Registrar passed an order dated 28-2-86 (Annexure P1) under section 53 (13) of the Act. In the background and for the reasons mentioned in that order, he in exercise of the powers under Section 53 (13) of the Act, appointed a committee for the Society, which was to function till the new elections were held. Against this order of the Joint Registrar, in appeal was filed before the board of Revenue. In that appeal, the Board of Revenue had passed some interim order. It appers that the order dated 28-2-S6 was again a subject-matter of challenge before the Gwalior Bench in Misc. Petition No. 5 0/86. Against this order of the Joint Registrar, in appeal was filed before the board of Revenue. In that appeal, the Board of Revenue had passed some interim order. It appers that the order dated 28-2-S6 was again a subject-matter of challenge before the Gwalior Bench in Misc. Petition No. 5 0/86. An interim ex parte stay order, pending admission, was passed on 13-5-86. Subsequently, the Bench by an order dated 26-6-86 dismissed this petition (M. P. No. 520/86 for the reason that it was directed against an interim order of the Board of revenue, whereby stay requested by the petitioner was refused. The interim stay order granted on 13-5-86 was also vacated, with a direction to the Board of revenue to decide the appeal expeditiously. ( 9 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, by an order dated 24-6-86 (Annexure-P-6), respondent no. 1 Shri J. P. Mishra, was appointed as the Returning Officer for conducting the elections of the Society. Accordingly respondent No 1 oa 11-8-86 issued the Election Programme vide Annexure P-7. 13th and 14th of August, 1986 were the dates for filing of the nomination papers, 16-8-86 was the date fixed for scrutiny and 19-8-86 was the date fixed for withdrawal. 28-8-86 was the date fixed for the General meeting. ( 10 ) IN Misc. Petition No. 1358/86 tbe averments made are that each of the seven petitioners had filed two sets of nomination papers for contesting the election for the membership of the Managing Committee. In para 5 of the petition it was alleged that on 16-8-86 respondent No. 1, i. e. the returning officer rejected the nomination papers on the ground that the first nomination paper has been proposed and seconded by those members of the Society who were the members of the former Managing Committee, which had been superseded on 2-1-1985 and the second nomination paper was rejected on the ground that it was prohibited by Rule 41 (5) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed under the Act. It was, therefore, urged that on an illegal construction of Section 53 (12) of the act, the nomination papers were rejected as the said provision does not attach any disqualification to the proposer or seconder and it merely affects the rights of the members of the superseded Managing Committee to re-contest the election. It was, therefore, urged that on an illegal construction of Section 53 (12) of the act, the nomination papers were rejected as the said provision does not attach any disqualification to the proposer or seconder and it merely affects the rights of the members of the superseded Managing Committee to re-contest the election. It has also been urged that if the first nomination paper is held to be illegal, it ceased to be a nomination papers at all and, therefore, the second nomination would be the only nomination left for consideration, which could not be rejected by applying Rule 41 (5) of the Rules. Besides some other objections, it was also urged that the nomination form of Shyamlal was wrongly accepted. Reasons in support thereof have also been mentioned. However, Shyamlal has not been added as a party to this petition. ( 11 ) AS already pointed out six of the petitioners were subsequently deleted. It was stated on behalf of the respondents that this deletion was for the reason that those deleted petitioners had prior to the filing of the present petition, submitted a revision petition in regard to the same matter of rejection of nomination papers by respondent No. 1 before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, m. P. , Bhopal under Sec. 80 of the Act and had also made a prayer for staying the declaration of the results in the said General Meeting dated 28-8-86 and the further proceedings of the election. He had also urged that the petitioners, which included even the petitioner No. 1l,were guilty of suppression of facts in the affidavit, which had been filed by the deleted petitioner No. 5 Ismail, in support of the petition. As it is petitioners 2 to 7, who had filed the revision have been deleted. Admittedly petitioner No. 1 Abdulrahim is not one of the petitioners in that revision. ( 12 ) ON behalf of respondent No. 1, a return dated 7-10-86 has been filed. With regard to para 5 of the petition, the reply is in para 16 of the return filed by respondent No. 1, which is as under:"as regards para No. 5 of the petition is concerned, since after 8-9-1986, the original petitioners No. 2 to 7 are not before this Hon'ble court as petitioner, and at their own request, they have got their names withdrawn/deleted from the petition (for which the respondent no. 1 has shown the ulterior motive behind it in the above said paras), the respondent No. 1 is submitting his explanation in regard to the present petitioner Shri Abdul Rahim. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 Society is doing the business of slate Pencil production and for which mining lease has been granted by the State Government. Shri Abdul Aziz s/o Haji Nanha Hamid, r/o Multanpura, Distt. Mandsaur has been granted Mining Lease for Slate Pencil production on 8-1-86 by the State Government who is son-in-law of Shri Mohd. Rafiq (the proposer of the petitioner's nomination paper ). The provisions of Section 19 (A) (c) provides that if the member or any member of his family having common interest with him carries on business similar to one carried on by the Society, will be disqualified for the Membership. Further, as per Section 19 (B) of the Act, the effect of subsequent disabilities have been mentioned i. e. after his becoming a member, if he incurs disqualification as mentioned in section 19 (A), such person shall cease to be a member of the Society. Now, Shri Mohd. Rafiq, who was the proposer of the petitioner-Shri abdul Rahim, has ceased to be a member of the Society by virtue of section 19 (A) (c) read with Section 19 (B) and Section 49 (7) of the m. P. Co-operative Societies Act as his son-in-law Shri Abdul Aziz s/o Haji Nanha Hamid resident of Multanpura, Mandsuar is doing the same business as of the Society, and therefore, as per Rule 41 (9), since the proposer Shri Mohammad Rafiq has become disqualified who has proposed the name of the petitioner, his nomination form was rejected on the above said grounds along with other grounds. (Copy of objection of Shri Kailash Shukla along with lease granted in favour of Shri Abdul Aziz, son-in-law of proposer Shri Mohd. Rafique are enclosed and marked as Annexure No. R/i/2 and 3 respectively ). The petitioner's second nomination paper was rejected on the ground that it was barred by Rule 41 (5) of the Rules. Thus, the nomination paper of the petitioner Shri Abdul Rahim was rightly rejected in accordance with law on the basis of material facts submitted prima facie before the answering respondent No. 1. The petitioner's second nomination paper was rejected on the ground that it was barred by Rule 41 (5) of the Rules. Thus, the nomination paper of the petitioner Shri Abdul Rahim was rightly rejected in accordance with law on the basis of material facts submitted prima facie before the answering respondent No. 1. " ( 13 ) WHAT has further been stated is with regard to the rejection of the second nomination paper under Rule 41 (5) of the Rules. What has been stated is that the first in point time is the first nomination paper and the second in point of time shall be the second nomination paper. According to this return, the second nomination paper was rightly rejected under Rule 41 (5) of the Rules. Besides these, other objections had also been raised in the return. ( 14 ) IN both these petitions one of the main arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the petitioners in any case have a alternative remedy under the Act itself and so no interference should be made in petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It has also been argued that Misc. Petition No. 1358/86 involves questions of facts, which have been referred to in para 16 of the return, as has been reproduced above. ( 15 ) BY Section 7 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act No. 23 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act'), following sub-section has been inserted after sub-section (11) of Section 53 of the principal Act:"when a Committee of a Society has been superseded under sub-section (1), the members of Committee, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, rules made thereunder, or bye-laws of the Society shall not be eligible for contesting the election as a member of the committee of that Society for a period of five years. "it was not disputed that this amending Act had come into force prior to the dates for filing of nomination papers as had been given in the election programme. ( 16 ) ANOTHER controversy that had arisen during the course of the hearing was whether the election results had been declared. To properly appreciate this controversy, it will be pertinent to refer to the relevant Rule. ( 16 ) ANOTHER controversy that had arisen during the course of the hearing was whether the election results had been declared. To properly appreciate this controversy, it will be pertinent to refer to the relevant Rule. Rule 41 of the rules, prior to its substitution was as under :"if the number of duly nominated candidates is equal to the number of members to be elected, the returning officer shall intimate this fact to the President of the Society, who shall read at the General Meeting the names of the candidates and shall declare all of them elected. "after the substitution, Rule 41 (12) is as under: -"if the number of duly nominated candidates is equal to the number of the members to be elected, the returning officer shall declare all of them elected and shall intimate this fact to the Society. "admittedly this substituted rule was the rule in force at the relevant time. Thus under Rule 41 (12) as it stood earlier, the returning officer was to intimate that fact to the President of the Society, who was to read at the General Meeting the names of the candidates and declare all of them elected. But under the Rule as was in force at the relevant time, the returning officer has to declare all of them elected and intimate the fact to the Society. ( 17 ) ON the one hand, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the returning officer had not declared the results, but the respondents in the return disputed that fact. A photo copy of the declaration of results of unopposed candidates dated 18-8-86 has been filed by respondent No. 1. In the last column against the names of seven persons, it has been mentioned in Hindi that "nirvirodh GHOSHIT KIYE JATE HAI". However at the bottom of that annexure, it is further mentioned to the effect that in the special General meeting dated 28-8-86, they be declared elected unopposed. ( 18 ) YET another controversy is that, sub-section (12) of Section 53 of the act, which has been added by the aforesaid amending Act, would at best provide for the disqualification against the candidate seeking the election and does not disqualify the proposer or the seconder even if they had been the member of a superseded Committee. ( 18 ) YET another controversy is that, sub-section (12) of Section 53 of the act, which has been added by the aforesaid amending Act, would at best provide for the disqualification against the candidate seeking the election and does not disqualify the proposer or the seconder even if they had been the member of a superseded Committee. ( 19 ) BEFORE proceeding further we may first answer the preliminary objection as bad been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. The objection was that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Act and so these petitions do not deserve to be entertained. Section 64 (2) enumerates the disputes which shall be included for purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act. Section 64 (2) (v) provides that dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the Society or representative of the Society or of composite Society, shall be a dispute for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act. However, there is a proviso to the aforesaid subs-ection (2) (v)which states that the Registrar shall not entertain any dispute under this clause during the period commencing from the commencement of the election programe till the declaration of the results. As already pointed out, there is a controversy on the question as to whether on the aforesaid admitted facts, the results should be taken to have been declared. Learned counsel has referred to some decisions in support of his submission that in view of the alternative remedy, which is available to the petitioners, these petitions should not be entertained. ( 20 ) IN Malam Singh v. Collector and others [ 1971 JLJ 379 ], the Full bench had considered the question of an alternative remedy in the light of decisions of their lordships of the Supreme Court. ( 20 ) IN Malam Singh v. Collector and others [ 1971 JLJ 379 ], the Full bench had considered the question of an alternative remedy in the light of decisions of their lordships of the Supreme Court. The Full Bench had laid down that "in view of the provisions of the M. P. Pancha> at Act, 1962, which provides for an adequate remedy, namely, the remedy of an election petition to be presented after the election is over, for all grievances whether grounded on the ultimate result of the election or upon any interlocutory order passed in the process of election, where that remedy is available, it would not be proper for the High court to exercise its undoubted powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for interfering with an interlocutory order passed during the process of election, save in very exceptional circumstances. " There can be no dispute on the question that the proviso to Section 64 (2) (v) of the Act does not restrict the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This is what flows out even by the decision of the Full Bench from Malam singh's case (supra) and the other cases relied by the learned counsel for the respondents. Malamsingh's case (supra) also lays down that such powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, could be exercised in very exceptional circumstances. These being the settled principles, it is not necessary to refer to all other decisions as have been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 21 ) SO far as Mangilaps petition is concerned, his nomination paper has been rejected by application of Section 53 (12) of the Act, which has been inserted by the aforesaid Amending Act No. 23 of 1986. There is no dispute on the question that Mangilal was a member of a Committee which had been superseded under Section 53 (1) of the Act. In view of this, it can not be said that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to reject the nomination of petitioner Mangilal. There is no dispute on the question that Mangilal was a member of a Committee which had been superseded under Section 53 (1) of the Act. In view of this, it can not be said that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to reject the nomination of petitioner Mangilal. The controversy in respect of Mangilal's rejection of the nomination paper, as stated above, is based upon the question whether this inserted clause 12 of Section 53 of the Act, would be retrospective in its operation or would be prospective, i. e. whether it would apply to such member s of a superseded committee which is superseded after the coming into force of Section 53 (12) of the Act or would also apply to those members of a Committee which had been superseded earlier than the coming into force of this clause 12 of Section 53 of the Act. However, since no question of jurisdiction or such an exceptional circumstance appears to have been made out so as to persuade us to entertain this Mangilal's petition, this petition No. 1494/86, is dismissed on the ground that since the petitioner has an alternative remedy available to him, it is not a fit case which may call for an interference in exercise of our powers under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 22 ) WITH regard to Misc. Petition No. 1358 of 1986, learned counsel for the respondents firstly urged that Ismail was one of the petitioners whose name was subsequently deleted. It also was pointed out that it was Ismail who had sowrn the affidavit in support ol the petition. The contention put forth was that ismail was one ol the persons who had filed a revision under Section 85 of the act before the Registrar and in the present petition that fact had been suppressed. What he, therefore, urged was that notwithstanding the deletion of Ismail as a party to this petition, this petition which now subsists only so far as the petitioner Abdul Rahim is concerned, should be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. In our opinion this contention also cannot be accepted. True it is that petitioners No. 2 to 7 got their names deleted from this petition presumably on the objection as had been put forth on behalf of the respondents about they having filed revision etc. In our opinion this contention also cannot be accepted. True it is that petitioners No. 2 to 7 got their names deleted from this petition presumably on the objection as had been put forth on behalf of the respondents about they having filed revision etc. However, in the circumstances we do not find it to be a fit case to dismiss this petition of Abdul Rahim when admittedly he was not the person who had filed any revision under Section 80 of the Act before the Registrar. It would not be proper to punish Abdul Rahim for a wrong done by Ismail or the other petitioners i. e. Nos. 2 to 7. Therefore, this objection of the respondents fails and is rejected. ( 23 ) ABDUL Rahim's petition (Misc. Petition No. 1358 of 1986) cannot in our opinion and for the reasons mentioned hereinafter be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available to him. Abdul rahim's nomination paper has also been rejected by the Returning Officer by application of Section 53 (12) of the Act. It is admitted that this nomination paper was rejected for the reason that the nomination paper of Abdul Rahim was proposed and seconded by such membsrs of the Society, who were the members of the former Managing Committee, which had been superseded on 2-1-1985. We have already reproduced the language of Section 53 (12) of the Act, which has been inserted by the Amending Act No. 23 of 1986. That refers to the ineligibility of the candidate for contesting the election as a member and does not at all make any reference to the proposer or seconder. We were told that apart from the petitioner some other nomination papers had also been rejected by the returning Officer on that very ground with the result that no contestant was left in the field. The petitioner Abdul Rahim was admittedly not a member of such a committee which had been superseded under Section 53 (12 of the act. The language of Section 53 (12) by no stretch of imagination creates any disability for a member of the superseded committee to propose or second a nomination paper. The rejection of the nomination of Abdul Rahim on that ground was fragrantly wrong, illegal and arbitrary. The language of Section 53 (12) by no stretch of imagination creates any disability for a member of the superseded committee to propose or second a nomination paper. The rejection of the nomination of Abdul Rahim on that ground was fragrantly wrong, illegal and arbitrary. No such provision of law could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, which would by any stretch of imagination permit the Returning Officer to reject the nomination on the aforesaid ground. We are satisfied that so far as the rejection of the nomination paper on that ground is concerned, it would clearly be an exceptional circumstance as otherwise the mischief would stand perpetuated. The Returning Officer had, therefore, no jurisdiction whatsoever to reject the nomination paper of petitioner Abdul Rahim on a ground which in law did not exist. We are satisfied that in the circumstances of Abdul Rahim's case, to set right at this stage itself the high handed action of respondent No. 1, an interference should be made in exercise of the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In our opinion, therefore, Abdul Rahim's petition cannot be thrown out on that preliminary objection, as had been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. In view of this, the order of rejection of petitioner Abdul Rahim's nomination cannot be upheld. ( 24 ) SINCE for the reasons stated above, we are not dismissing Abdul rahim's petition on the aforesaid preliminary objectioa, to avoid any further confusion and complication, it would be appropriate and necessary to decide the question as to whether or not the election results had been declared. That has to be decided on the admitted facts as they stand and any further enquiry in that behalf is neither suggested nor necessary. In the instant case, the number of the duly nominated candidates, owing to the said rejection of the other nominations was equal to the number of the members to be elected. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that inspite of the request being made, certified copies were not supplied and the record being with the concerned authority, much credence can not be attached to the endorsements given in Hindi about the seven persons having been declared elected uncontested. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that inspite of the request being made, certified copies were not supplied and the record being with the concerned authority, much credence can not be attached to the endorsements given in Hindi about the seven persons having been declared elected uncontested. He also urged that at the bottom of the said document it has ben clearly mentioned that the seven persons had to be declared elected in the special general meeting to held on 28-8-1986. As it is, it would be difficult to give a specific finding that the endorsement "nirvirodh GHOSHIT KIYE JATE HAI", as has been referred to in para 17 above, has been subsequently done. The fact, however, remains that it is not possible to reconcile the said endorsement in Hindi with what has been mentioned at the bottom that they be declared elected unopposed in the special general meeting to be held on 28-8-1986. ( 25 ) IN the return filed on behalf of the Returning Officer in para 7 it has been mentioned as follows :"since on 18-8-86 that is on final date of withdrawal, respondent No. 1 found the 7 candidates on record who remained unopposed and seats were also seven equivalent to that, he had declared them elected as required by present Rule 41 (12) and had intimated this fact to the society. Similar declaration was also made in regard to the representative of the distt. Co-operative Union, Mandsaur. Copy of declaration dated 18-8-86 is enclosed and marked as Annexure R-1. "ths return nowhere explains as to how if this declaration had been made as he claim, he made the endorsement down below that they be declared elected in the special general meeting dated 28-8-86 as these two endorsements would be inconsistent with each other. The respondents did not also place on record any document to show that he had intimated that fact of declaration by him to the society. Having given our anxious consideration and in the circumstances of the case and to avoid any further complication we hereby hold that the returning officer had not complied with the requirement of sub-rule (12) of Rule 41 of the rules as it stood on 18-8-86. Accordingly, it is found that the Returning Officer had not declared the election results. Having given our anxious consideration and in the circumstances of the case and to avoid any further complication we hereby hold that the returning officer had not complied with the requirement of sub-rule (12) of Rule 41 of the rules as it stood on 18-8-86. Accordingly, it is found that the Returning Officer had not declared the election results. ( 26 ) SINCE, we have taken the view that the rejection of Abdul Rahim's nomination was wholly illegal and contrary to law, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether after having rejected the first nomination, the returning officer could have rejected the other nomination by application of Rule 41 (5)of the Rules. Since, the order of rejection of the first nomination is being quashed, the rejection of the second nomination as a consequence to that has also to be quashed. ( 27 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner did not persue the objection that mohammad Rafiq, who was the proposer of petitioner Abdul Rahim's nomination was disqualified. This submission has to be rejected because that was not the ground on which the nomination was rejected. It would be premature also for us to go into that question. Therefore, so far as Abdul Rahim's petition being misc. Petition No. 1358 of 1986 is concerned, the impugned orders whereby his nomination papers were rejected, deserve to be quashed. ( 28 ) CONSEQUENTLY, Mangilal's petition being Misc. Petition No. 1494/86 is, for the reasons stated above, dismissed. Misc. Petition No. 1358/86 of Abdul rahim is allowed and the orders of the returning officer rejecting his nomination papers are quashed. The Returning Officer shall now proceed further in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to the costs of both these petitions, which shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Order accordingly. .