M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN these writ appeals, following two questions of law arise for consideration: (1) whether this court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with any illegality, committed in the course of holding election to the offices of any authority/body, which is regulated by statutory Provisions, if the law provides for filing an election dispute challenging the legality of the election of the candidates declared elected? (2) if the answer to the above question is in the negative, then under what circumstances this court should exercise or should decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution? ( 2 ) BRIEF and undisputed facts of the case are these: the 2nd respondent-the taluka agricultural produce co-operative marketing society (t. a. p. c. m. s.) is a co-operative society constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the act' for short ). The area of its operation is Bangalore north taluk. Under Section 16 of the Act, any other co-operative society can be admitted as its member. The agricultural co-operative societies (vyavasaya seva sahakara sanghas) established at various places in the taluk, are its members. Matters relating to election to the managing committee of the society are regulated by the Provisions of the act and the rules framed thereunder. In respect of certain classes of co-operative societies, Section 29-c (5) of the act empowers the state government to prescribe one of the conditions of eligibility for election. It reads: "29-c. Disqualification for membership of the committee. (5) in the case of co-operative marketing societies, consumers co-operative societies and such class or classes of co-operative societies as may be specified by the state government, by notification in the official gazette, no member shall be eligible for being appointed or elected as a member of the committee of such co-operative society if he does not fulfil the minimum qualifications relating to his transactions with the co-operative society upto such monetary limits as may be specified from time to time in such notification. " As can be seen from sub-section (5), it confers power on the state government to specify, by notification in the official gazette, the minimum qualification relating to the transactions of members upto such monetary limits and to say that members who do not fulfil such qualification shall not be eligible for being appointed or elected as a member of the committee of the society of which they are members. ( 3 ) IN exercise of the power under Section 29-c (5), the state government issueda notification on 25th january, 1991. It reads: "government of Karnataka No. Cmw. 5. cpc/87. Kamataka govt. Secretariat, m. s. building, Bangalore, dated 25-1-1991. Notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 29-c of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka act 11 of 1959), the government of Karnataka hereby specify that in case of the classes of cooperative societies specified in column (2) of the table below, no member shall be eligible for being appointed or elected as a member of the committee of such co-operative society, if he does not fulfil the minimum qualifications relating to his transactions with the co-operative society of the monetary limits specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof. ( 21 ) THE next question for consideration is, whether this is a fit case in which we should interfere. Normally illegal acceptance of nomination papers do not constitute a substantial injury to the other eligible candidates. It is well settled principle in law governing resolution of election disputes that in the case of illegal acceptance of nominations, the election of a candidate can be set aside only if it is proved by evidence that the result was materially affected on account of illegal acceptance of one or more nomination papers. Therefore, in such cases it is impossible to hold in a writ petition that the result of the election is going to be materially affected. Therefore, if the total number of eligible candidates whose nominations are accepted is more than the number of candidates to be elected; even if a few nominations of ineligible candidates are accepted, it would give no valid ground for interference in a writ petition. Similarly, if the question as to whether a candidate whose nomination is accepted, is eligible or not, is a disputed question of fact, this court cannot decide the said question in a writ petition. Similarly, if the question as to whether a candidate whose nomination is accepted, is eligible or not, is a disputed question of fact, this court cannot decide the said question in a writ petition. Therefore, as a general principle it can safely be said that a writ petition challenging the legality of acceptance of nomination papers should not be entertained. Therefore, in this case, we would have upheld the dismissal of the writ petition and dismissed the appeal, but for the flagrant illegality committed and abuse of power indulged in by the first respondent, but for which the appellant and four others have been declared elected as uncontested. ( 22 ) THE facts and circumstances and the reasons which place this case in an exceptional category are: (i) flagrant illegality committed by the first respondent in accepting the nominations of respondents 3 to 8 knowing fully well that only five societies specified in Annexure-B were eligible from among 'a' class members in view of the notification issued by the state government dated 25-1-1991 (Annexure-A) under Section 29-c (5) of the act and that in view of that notification respondents 3 to 8 were ineligible to contest hi the elections, which fact is not even disputed by respondents 3 to 8. (ii) regarding 'b' class members from which two members are to be elected, the first respondent rejected the nomination paper of Nagaraja Reddy, the appellant in W. A. No. 2489 of 1991, relying on the same notification (Annexure-A ). The endorsement issued to him reads: "endorsement the nomination paper of Sri R. Nagaraja Reddy s/o Late Ramaiah in the 'b' category is rejected, since he has not transacted with taluk agricultural produce co-operative marketing society, to the extent of Rs. 15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand only) during the last preceding year, as per government order No. Cmw 5 CPC 87, dated 25-1-1991. Bangalore, dt: 25-1-1991. Sd/- returning officer, tapcms, Bangalore north arcs, Bangalore iii circle. " The appellants have stated that out of 17 candidates as many as 15 nomination papers filed, in respect of 'b' class, including that of the appellant in w. a. No. 2489/1991, were rejected relying on Annexure-A and the remaining two candidates were declared elected unopposed. The conduct of the first respondent as above clearly establishes legal mala fides. " The appellants have stated that out of 17 candidates as many as 15 nomination papers filed, in respect of 'b' class, including that of the appellant in w. a. No. 2489/1991, were rejected relying on Annexure-A and the remaining two candidates were declared elected unopposed. The conduct of the first respondent as above clearly establishes legal mala fides. (iii) there is also no dispute that if the nominations of six persons, that is, of respondents 3 to 8 were rejected as they ought to have been rejected, there was no necessity for taking the poll for the reason that there would have been only five valid nominations including that of the appellants and all of them bad to be declared elected uncontested as the number of persons to be elected from among 'a' class members is seven, as has been done by the returning officer in respect of 'b' class members. (iv) the refusal on our part to interfere would help the ineligible candidates, some of whom are bound to be declared elected, as eligible candidates are only five, to reap the benefit of the illegal action of the first respondent till the disposal of election dispute, which would in the usual course takes considerable time, which can be enlarged still, resorting to delaying tactics which is usually resorted to in such cases by those who had been benefitted by the illegal action of the returning officer. (v) it is not in the interest of the second respondent-institution, to allow all or any of the respondents 3 to 8 to secure the power to manage the affairs of the second respondent, when they are ineligible to hold the office. ( 23 ) THUS, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that this is an exceptional case in which we should stop the illegality at the earliest and that if we decline to interfere under Article 226, we would be failing in our duty. ( 23 ) THUS, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that this is an exceptional case in which we should stop the illegality at the earliest and that if we decline to interfere under Article 226, we would be failing in our duty. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if we were to hold that in such glaring cases also we decline to interfere, it would only encourage the returning officers who are prone to act in such arbitrary manner to do so and allow the beneficiaries of such illegal action to reap the fruits until an election dispute is decided which would take and would be made to take longer time. We see considerable force in the submission. ( 25 ) THE only ground forcefully urged by Sri A. K. Subbaiah, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8 in support of his submission that we should decline to interfere in this case, was that the appellant had not challenged the order of the returning officer accepting the nomination of respondents 3 to 8 and rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner, but they had only challenged the final list of candidates published vide Annexure-E. It is seen from the writ petition that the prayer made is, for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the acceptance of nomination papers of respondents 3 to 8 as per Annexure-E. Annexure e reads: "eligibility list of candidates under Rule 14 (a) (3) of Co-Operative Societies Rules after scrutinising the applications on 25-7-1991 at 11 a. m. for the election of the working committee of Bangalore north taluk agricultural co-operative marketing federation Ltd. , Bangalore, for the year 1991-92 to 1993-94 to be held on 31-7-1991: