V. D. GYAAI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of Annexure-B, list of Represetatives to the Ratlam Thok Upbhogta Sahakari Bhandar from various groups, as issued by the respondents, Annexure-E, dated 23-11-88 rejecting, petitioner's objections to the above list, Annexure-G, list of Representatives and Annexure-I, the Election programme, as published by the Returning officer. ( 2 ) HAVING heard Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondents and that is how Shri S. Bhargava, learned Government Advocate appears for the respondents. He has also filed his reply and they are heard. ( 3 ) SHRI Sethi urged that as per the Bye-law No. 9-B of the Society, out of 50 to 100, one delegate was to be elected from amongst individual members, but the respondents contrary to the Bye-law elected one delegate amongst 50 members and elected only 9 delegates, thus depriving other persons of their right of franchise and others of representing as delegates. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS In their reply have disputed the allegations made by the petitioner. It has been contended that Bye-law 9-B of the Society, which provides for right to determine group of Individual members and in accordance with the proviso to the Bye-law 9-B, it was left to the Board of directors of the Society, who in their Meeting held on 8-1-1985 decided to elect one Member for every group of 150 members. A copy of the resolution dated 8-l-1985 has been filed along with the return, marked as annexure-R/1. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that Bye-law 9-B is directory in nature and not mandatory. ( 5 ) ON mere reading of the Resolution, Annexure-R/1, which was filed on 3-2-1989, and in absence of any other material being placed by the petitioner in rebuttal of the said Resolution, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner loses even whatever little significance it had. Even according to the petitioner, an alternative remedy is available under Section 64 (5) of the Co-operative Societies Act. But what has been said is that this is not efficatious, as this remedy is before an officer subordinate to respondent No 2. How does this alternative remedy become unefficatious simply because the remedy lies before an officer subordinate to respondent no. But what has been said is that this is not efficatious, as this remedy is before an officer subordinate to respondent No 2. How does this alternative remedy become unefficatious simply because the remedy lies before an officer subordinate to respondent no. 1, whose role in the matter has not been clearly averred or stated in the petition, so as to show as to how the subordinate authority would be biased against the petitioner. The only allegation made in the grounds is about holding of fresh elections in a Society at Jhabua, while not following the same practice in Ratlam. There is no material on record to show as to what weighed with respondent No. 1 in conducting fresh elections of delegates for Jhabua Society. In the circumstances the contention that the remedy is not efficacious, cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) IN face of the directory nature of Bye-law 9-B and the availability of efficacious alternative remedy, we do not consider it to be a fit case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .