VERMA, J.—Sheopat Ram, who was writ petitioner before the learned single Judge, is the appellant before us. Learned Single Judge dismissed his petition holding that the same is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in Ram Rakh v. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 110/1991 decided on 05.3.1991. Aggrieved, Sheopat Ram has filed this Special Appeal. (2) We may briefly notice here the facts giving rise to the writ petition and this appeal. The appellant is a member of Golawala Siyagon Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, hereinafter called the Samiti. The Samiti is a duly registered Co-operative registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter called the Act. Election of the Committee of the Society was to be held on 27.1.91. Election of the office bearers of the Society was to be held on 28.1.91. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Suratgarh appointed respondent No. 3 Babulal to be Election Officer for the said elections and issued order annexure I dated 16.11.90 with programme of election. According to this programme provisional voters lists to be published on 31.12.1990; objections were to be decided by 7.1.91 and final list had to be published the same day. Nominations were to be filed on 19.1.91 and scrutiny was to take place on 20.1.91. (3). The case of the appellant is that provisional list of voters (Anx.2) was published by the Election Officer on 31.12.90 as scheduled. The final list was published on 7.1.91. However, the same day, the Election Officer directed the Manager of the Society to include names of 119 persons in the list, even though such 119 persons had neither deposited the requisite fee nor application was given by any such member till 7.1.91. The Manager refused to include these names. However, the Election Officer without any authority of law added these 119 names in the final list. It was pleaded that names of these persons were not entered even in the Register of members of the Society. It was pleaded that 119 persons, whose names had been added in the final voters list were not entitled to participate in the election inasmuch as they were not enrolled even as members of the Society. It was pleaded that names of these persons were not entered even in the Register of members of the Society. It was pleaded that 119 persons, whose names had been added in the final voters list were not entitled to participate in the election inasmuch as they were not enrolled even as members of the Society. Upon such averments, the petitioner filed the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, on 15.1.91 i.e. much before the election and inter alia prayed as follows :— "I. that by an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. Election Officer non-petitioner may be directed not to allow 119 persons whose names are given in Anx. 3 to participate in the election on 27.1.1991. II. Further by an appropriate writ, order or direction,inclusion of names of 119 persons on 7.1.1991 may be quashed and set aside. III, That pending the writ petition if election takes place or any other order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner is passed, then the same may also kindly be quashed and set aside." (4). The petitioner also moved a stay application along with the writ petition. On this stay application, the learned single Judge passed the following order:— "issue notice of the stay application. Meanwhile election may proceed and the 119 persons who have been added by the order dated 7.1.91 of the Election Officer may be provisionally permitted to exercise the right of vote (Anx. 3) and all those votes shall be kept in sealed cover and the result of the election shall not be announced." It may be stated that the writ petition was admitted by the learned Single Judge. (5). It appears that one Om Prakash, who was a candidate at the impugned election moved an application for being impleaded as a party. This application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 18.2.91. Consequently, Om Prakash was so impleaded. He opposed this writ petition and filed a counter wherein it was alleged that 119 persons had become members of the Society on 17.7.1990. The Management Committee was unwilling to accept a number of persons as members. Hence, 314 members submitted applications before the Assistant Registrar and deposited the amounts of share money @ Rs. 11/- each member, with Ganganagar Central Co-operative Bank on 13.4.90,19.4.90,23.4.90 and2.5.90. The Management Committee was unwilling to accept a number of persons as members. Hence, 314 members submitted applications before the Assistant Registrar and deposited the amounts of share money @ Rs. 11/- each member, with Ganganagar Central Co-operative Bank on 13.4.90,19.4.90,23.4.90 and2.5.90. The Assistant Registrar forwarded these 314 applications to the Manager of the Society on 17.7.90. These applications were received in the office of the Society on 17.7.90 itself and thus these 314 persons including 119 persons became members of Society. Moreover, names of these 119 persons were not included in the provisional list issued on 31.12.90. Objections were raised regarding non-inclusion of these names on 31.12.90, upon which their names were included on 7.1.91 in the final list. It was pleaded that whether 119 persons had been members or not was a question of fact which could not be gone into by the court. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available u/s 75 of the Act and hence the petition was liable to be dismissed. (6). The Manager of the Society viz. Shri Yashwant Ram filed his affidavit and stated that 190 (sic) persons mentioned in the writ petition were not the members of the Society and their names were not entered into the Register of members of the Society, nor they had paid the requisite fees nor submitted the application forms personally. They had also not made necessary declarations and had not completed other formalities. It may be mentioned here that he did not specifically deny that 314 persons including 119 persons had submitted their application forms to the Assistant Registrar and the Assistant Registrar had forwarded these forms to the Manager and such forms had been received in the office of the Committee on 17.7.90. It also not denied specifically that share money @ ll/-per member had been deposited in the Bank as alleged by Om Prakash. Petitioner also filed an additional affidavit but he also did not categorically say that forms of 119 members had not been sent by the Assistant Registrar to the Office of the Society. Rather, he admitted that there was no dispute about the membership but the dispute is about patent illegalities committed by the Election Officer." (7). Petitioner also filed an additional affidavit but he also did not categorically say that forms of 119 members had not been sent by the Assistant Registrar to the Office of the Society. Rather, he admitted that there was no dispute about the membership but the dispute is about patent illegalities committed by the Election Officer." (7). Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the principal ground that u/s 75 of the Act, an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner and preparation of electoral roll was matter which could be resolved by an arbitrator appointed u/s 75 of the Act. (8). In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that in the instant case, the preparation of electoral roll was vitiated by a grave illegality committed by the Election Officer. Once a final voters list had been published, Election Officer could not have revised the same. Inclusion of names of 119 voters suffered from patent illegality because such persons had not been enrolled as members one month prior to the date of election. He also contended that at the stage, the petition was filed, no remedy was available u/s 75 of the Act. Moreover, in proceedings u/s 75 of the Act, illegal acts of the Election Officer could not have been enquired into. Such a dispute where illegal acts of the Election Officer were under challenge could not have been heard by an arbitrator appointed u/s 75 of the Act. Lastly, it was submitted that remedy available under the Act was neither speedy nor adequate. Hence the order of learned single Judge should be set aside and reliefs sought in the petition should be granted. (9). The appeal has been opposed by contesting respondent no. 1 and no.5 with matched vehemence. (10). We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record. The first and foremost question which needs consideration is if the learned single Judge should not have thrown out the petition on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. (11). We may readily state that existence of an alternative remedy is not always a bar to maintainability of a writ petition. It is not a jurisdictional bar. But it is a bar devised on grounds of public policy and expediency. In suitable cases, the court may grant relief, notwithstanding the fact that an alternative remedy is available. (11). We may readily state that existence of an alternative remedy is not always a bar to maintainability of a writ petition. It is not a jurisdictional bar. But it is a bar devised on grounds of public policy and expediency. In suitable cases, the court may grant relief, notwithstanding the fact that an alternative remedy is available. We need not cite the various rulings cited on this aspect of the matter but may take note of some of the landmark judgments on this aspect. In this context, we may refer to M/s Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheswari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad (1), in which it was held that where the Tribunal acted under the provisions which were ultravires and continued proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice the courts would intervene, notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. Likewise, it was held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and another (2), that where the executive authority acted without jurisdiction and the subject was likely to be subjected to lengthy and dilatory proceedings, the court could intervene. In Bar Council of Delhi & another V. Surjeet Singh and another (3), it was held that where elections were to be held in pursuance of an electoral roll prepared under provision of law, which was ultravires, the court could intervene. Thus, we may take it as settled law that where proceedings suffer from fundamental defect of jurisdiction or patent illegality, the court can grant relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to grant of such relief. (12). However, normally a court does not interfere with election process, once it has commenced and an election petition is the proper remedy. This is the ratio of the Ram Rakh case (supra), which is based on certain D.B. decisions of this Court viz. Bharat Lal Dugal v. The Registrar Sahkari Samities, Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors. (4), Kanwar Pal V. State of Raj. & Ors. (5) and Raju Ram V. Gram Sahkari Samiti Mamser & Ors. (6) and Ram Niwas V. State of Raj. & Ors. (7). Bharat Lal Dugal v. The Registrar Sahkari Samities, Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors. (4), Kanwar Pal V. State of Raj. & Ors. (5) and Raju Ram V. Gram Sahkari Samiti Mamser & Ors. (6) and Ram Niwas V. State of Raj. & Ors. (7). Therefore, we may accept it as a settled proposition of law that once the election process has started, this Court would not interfere with the same and the election dispute can be resolved under the provisions of Sec. 75 of the Act, which is an adequate and equally speedy and efficacious remedy under the law. We respectfully agree with the views propounded in the aforesaid decisions. (13). Preparation of an electoral roll has been held to be a part of the election process in Bharat Lal Dugals case (supra) and it has been observed in that decision : "The preparation of a voters list is a part of the election process and a dispute relating to the legality of the voters list is, therefore, a dispute arising in connection with the election. In our opinion, the remedy under Sec. 75 of the Act is an efficacious remedy for the decision of the dispute raised by the petitioner." We are in respectful agreement with this view and hold that improper inclusion of names of persons not entitled to vote or improper exclusion of names of persons entitled to vote at an election is in essence an election dispute within the meaning of Sec. 75 of the Act and such a dispute can be adequately decided under Sec. 75 of the Act. This view also finds support from Kanwar Pals case (supra). (14). This takes us to the consideration of the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that once the writ petition had been admitted and had been heard, it ought to have been decided on merits. He has relied upon certain rulings in this regard to which we shall presently refer. In Purushottam Singh V. The Union of India & Ors. (8), the writ petition had been heard on merits after admission. The only point involved in the case was purely legal. There was no dispute on facts. It was urged that alternative remedy was available and hence the writ petition should be dismissed. In Purushottam Singh V. The Union of India & Ors. (8), the writ petition had been heard on merits after admission. The only point involved in the case was purely legal. There was no dispute on facts. It was urged that alternative remedy was available and hence the writ petition should be dismissed. The contention was repelled in the circumstances of the case saying that the objection did not survive when the writ petition had been admitted and heard on merits. In Pala Singh V. State of Rajasthan & others (9) a similar situation obtained. In Mewad Sheet Garh V. The State of Rajasthan (10), the questions raised were legal, the writ had been admitted almost seven years prior to its hearing on merits and driving the petitioner to seek alternative remedy would have been highly unjust; it was in these circumstances that it was decided on merits notwithstanding that an alternative remedy was available. Thus, to our mind, it depends upon facts of each case whether the writ petition after admission should be decided on merits or it should be thrown out on the basis of other valid grounds available to the Court. No universal or hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. In the present case, the writ petition was admitted on 19.1.91. It was decided on 16.7.91 i.e. within less than six months of the admission. (15). Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that remedy under Sec. 75 of the Act was not available till the election was over. In other words, alternative remedy was not available at the particular stage at which the writ had been filed. His second contention is that irregularities or illegalities committed by an Election Officer could not be gone into under proceedings under Sec. 75 of the Act. In support of the first proposition, reliance has been placed upon Chaina Ram V. State of Raj. (11). In this ruling a view has been propounded that once the election process starts, the Registrar has no authority to interfere with the process. In this very case, it has been observed that where a grievance is made about incorrect preparation of electoral rolls, the Registrar has no power to intervene. (11). In this ruling a view has been propounded that once the election process starts, the Registrar has no authority to interfere with the process. In this very case, it has been observed that where a grievance is made about incorrect preparation of electoral rolls, the Registrar has no power to intervene. There can be no quarrel with this proposition, and we have no hesitation in saying that at the stage, the writ petitioner approached this court, he could not have approached the Registrar u/s 75 of the Act. But, the second limb of the contention is not tenable because the expression "any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the Society" used in Sec. 75(2) (c) of the Act is very wide and would embrace within its ambit all disputes arising in connection with election. Dispute regarding preparation of a voters list would be very much such a dispute. (16). To our mind, when an Arbitrator hears an election dispute, he can definitely take into consideration if the Election Officer has committed any illegalities or irregularities that go to vitiate the election. To contend that such a question cannot be gone into by the Arbitrator appointed u/s 75 of the Act is to misapprehend the true nature and scope of the powers of an Arbitrator deciding the election dispute. This is true that Election Officer may not be arrayed as a party to such a dispute because truly speaking it is not a dispute between the Election Officer and the members; basically it would be a dispute between members and members. Nevertheless, the Arbitrator has full powers to decide an election dispute including acts of omission or commission of an Election Officer, which go to affect the election materially. If there is any doubt on this score, we dispel the same and lay it down as law applicable to Arbitrators hearing election disputes under Sec. 75 of the Act that while deciding an election dispute, such Arbitrators can definitely go into alleged irregularities or illegalities committed by Election Officers, which may bave the effect of vitiating the election in question. The law declared by this Court is binding on all subordinate courts and Tribunals including domestic Tribunals like Arbitrators appointed u/s 75 of the Act. See Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. V. State of West Bengal and others (12). (17). The law declared by this Court is binding on all subordinate courts and Tribunals including domestic Tribunals like Arbitrators appointed u/s 75 of the Act. See Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. V. State of West Bengal and others (12). (17). Now, we may consider the facts of the case. Though, the petitioners has attempted to say that 119 persons, whose names had been included in the final list of voters. Had not been admitted as members of the society at all, his contention falls to the ground in view of the counter filed by Om Prakash bolstered by the provisions of first proviso to sub-section (2) of Sec. 19 of the Act. This submission with the first proviso (second proviso is not material for our discussion) reads as follows: "Sec. 19 (2). An application for admission as member of a co- operative society shall lie to the committee of that co- operative society. Such committee shall decide the application and communicate its decision to the applicant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the application, and where the application is refused, it shall also be necessary for the committee to communicate to the applicant, the reasons for such refusal, within the said period : Provided that subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) every person including to weaker section who applies for membership to the Assistant Registrar or to the Committee of a Village Service Society, Primary Land Development Bank or a Farmers Service Society shall be deemed to have been admitted to such membership with effect from the date of receipt of his application in the office of the society." A plain reading of this proviso goes to show that 314 persons including 119 persons referred to above, became members of the society by the deeming clause of the proviso on the date, their applications had been received in the office of the committee viz. on 17.7.90 i.e. much too prior to the date on which prohibited period under Rule 26 commenced. Perhaps, the petitioner himself realized the flaw from which his pleadings suffered on this aspect. on 17.7.90 i.e. much too prior to the date on which prohibited period under Rule 26 commenced. Perhaps, the petitioner himself realized the flaw from which his pleadings suffered on this aspect. In para 11 of his additional affidavit, he conceded"There is no dispute about the membership, but the dispute is about the patent illegalities committed by the Election Officer." It appears that the petitioner was not sure of his plea and this is why he prevaricates when he states in para 12 of this very additional affidavit."That there is no prima facie case or any evidence is produced regarding 119 persons who can be said to be the members of the society." (18). On the contrary, the affidavit of Om Prakash is categorical. Paras 7,8 and 9 of the affidavit read as follows :— "7. That the Management Committee was unwilling to accept a number of persons as members. These persons, therefore, applied before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Suratgarh for impleading as members of the Society Respondent No. 4. These persons submitted applications before the Assistant Registrar and deposited the amounts of share money @ Rs. 11/- per members with the Ganganagar Central Co-operative Bank on 13.4.90, 24.4.90, 19.4.90 and 2.5.90. -A list of the persons who had deposited the share money with Shri Ganganagar Central Co-operative Bank was submitted on the same day before the Manager Respondent No. 4. Photo copies of the lists submitted before the Respondent No. 4 and his receipt was obtained on the copy of the list submitted on each day. Photo stat copies of the said lists are submitted herewith and marked annexure B 1 to B 6. 8. That the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies had also received 8 other applications from other persons who had applied before him and had deposited the money with the Bank. 9. That the Assistant Registrar forwarded 314 applications to the Manager, Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Goluwala alongwith his covering letter dated 17.7.90 (copy Annexure-C). These applications were received by the Manager on the same day i.e. 17.7.90. Thus 314 persons became the members of the Goluwala Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. with effect from 17.7.90." There is no specific denial of these averments. These applications were received by the Manager on the same day i.e. 17.7.90. Thus 314 persons became the members of the Goluwala Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. with effect from 17.7.90." There is no specific denial of these averments. These averments show that 314 persons including 119 persons whose membership is disputed by the appellant, had become members of the Society by virtue of first proviso to Sec. 19 (2) of the Act. (19). Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Election Officer committed grave illegality in entering the names of aforesaid 119 persons in the voters list even though their names did not find place in Register of members maintained by the Secretary of the Society. We do not think that the Election Officer committed any impropriety, irregularity or illegality in entering the names of aforesaid persons in the voters list on the said ground. Rather, it was the Manager of the Society, who committed grave impropriety by not entering the names of aforesaid 119 persons, even though by operation of law, they were deemed to have become members of the society. The Manager Shri Yashvant Ram in his affidavit did not have the courage to rebut the affidavit of Om Prakash in relation to the specific averments reproduced above. He has tried to suggest that these 190 (sic) members had not personally presented the forms, had not given declarations and had not completed other formalities and as such they had not become members of the Society. No rule or law has been cited to show that the application forms had to be presented in person or any declarations had to be filed. It has not been stated as to what other formality remained to be completed. Hence, this statement of the Secretary does not advance the case of the petitioner in any way. (20). Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, compliance with Rule 24 was not made. This Rule reads as follows : "24. List of members of Co-operatives. Every Co-operative society shall prepare a list of its members as on the last day of each co-operative year. The list shall be kept open at the office of the society during office hours for inspection by any member of the society. This Rule reads as follows : "24. List of members of Co-operatives. Every Co-operative society shall prepare a list of its members as on the last day of each co-operative year. The list shall be kept open at the office of the society during office hours for inspection by any member of the society. The list of members shall be revised thirty days prior to the date of the meeting fixed for the election of the Committee of the society and shall include the members admitted and exclude the members removed during the period commencing from the date when the list was last revised and ending with the date of the revision of the list. The list shall be in form "B". Now, Such a register was to be maintained by the society under rule 100 (1) (c). If the Register was not maintained properly it was a lapse on the part of the society, which could not deprive the members of their right to be included in the voters list. From the circumstances of the case it appears that the Manager did not discharge his duty properly in this regard. (21). Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Rule 32(4) and submitted that these rules were not complied with and at any rate Election Officer committed grave irregularity in adding 119 names to the voters list after he had published the same. The relevant part of Rule 32(4) reads as follows:— "32 (4). The Election Officer shall prepare a list, as it stood thirty days prior to the date fixed for the poll of members who are qualified, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, rules and the bye-laws framed thereunder to vote at the election and publish copies of the list by affixing them to the notice board at the head office of the Society and all its branches not less than ten days prior to the date fixed for election. The list shall specify the admission number and name of the eligible member, and in case of individual members, the name of the father or husband and the address of such member. A copy of the list shall be supplied by the Election Officer to any member on payment of fifteen paisa per folio." (22). The list shall specify the admission number and name of the eligible member, and in case of individual members, the name of the father or husband and the address of such member. A copy of the list shall be supplied by the Election Officer to any member on payment of fifteen paisa per folio." (22). Before we advert to these rules, we would like to recall that under Sec. 19 (2) of the Act, the Committee of the Society was bound to decide the applications of aforesaid 119 persons for admission to the Society within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of their applications in the office of the Society. In case, the committee refused the applications, it was under a duty to communicate its decision to the applicants. It does not appear that any such thing was done. Hence, if the Election Officer treated such applicants as members of the Soceity, he was not at all wrong in its approach and more so because of the first proviso to this sub-section, which created a fiction of law in favour of the applicatns. If the Returning Officer would have refused to add the names of these 119 persons to the final electoral list, his action would have deprived 119 members of their right of franchise. Therefore, in the apeculier circumstances of the case, the Election Officer was right in adding their names to the voters list. (23). Now, we may deal with the aforesaid contention of the appellant that there was contravention of Rule 32(4) of the Rules. We have already reproduced this rule. Technically, it is correct to say that names of these 119 persons did not appear in the list as it stood 30 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. Obviously, this was as a consequence of the inaction, deliberate or uninternational of the committee and there appear to be substance in the plea of the contesting respondent that the committee was unwilling to admit these persons. It further appears to us that the Manager must have been a party to action of the Committee. In these peculier circumstances, when the Register of members of the society did not reflect the true position, it was but natural that names of these 119 persons could not have been included in the provisional list. It further appears to us that the Manager must have been a party to action of the Committee. In these peculier circumstances, when the Register of members of the society did not reflect the true position, it was but natural that names of these 119 persons could not have been included in the provisional list. On that day the final list was to be published, an incomplete list was published due to aforesaid action of the committee. It is an admitted position that the same day, impugned 119 names were added. This would have been done till the last moment of the day. Such a publication would be final only at the end of the day. Hence, the just and proper action of the Election Officer could not be assailed on a very purely technical objection. Moreso, this court in exercise of its discretion under Art. 226 would not interfere, when the action of the Returning Officer, was a just one, though in apparent technical breach of the rule. (24). At this juncture, we may notice the various rulings upon which learned counsel for the appellant relied. In Siddappa Yellappa Kundargi V The Election Officer and another (13), it was held that in extra-ordinary circumstances High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to decide validity of an election. In this case, the Election Officer had rejected the nomination of the appellant on a patently erroneous view that appellant did not belong to Scheduled Caste. No evidence was required to prove this fact. Before the learned single Judge of the High Court this fact had also been conceded, yet he dismissed the petition. It was in these extra-ordinary circumstances that the Division Bench of the Karanataka High Court intervened. In K. Govindan V. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (14), names of persons, who were not members, were included in the voters list and intervention was made. In this context, the following observations of the Apex Court in Chief Commer. of Ajmer V. Radhey Shyam Dani (15) were recalled :— "It is the essence of the election that proper electoral roll should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Otherwise the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the election held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged. Proper electoral roll is a fundamental factor before the election is actually held and if the complaint is that no such roll has been prepared in accordance with the Rules, this Court can certainly step in even before the election is actually held and prevent the election being held on the imperfect electoral rolls exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." We may add that when election is vitiated due to a fundamental defect in preparation of electoral roll, this court can definitely intervene but in the present case, it is not such a case at all. Rather, the Election Officer, by his impugned act, cured a fundamental defect, which would have cropped in the list due to action of the Committee/Manager. (25). Raj Rani and others etc. V. Delhi Administration (16), also does not assist the appellant in anyway. In that case a Housing Co-operative Committee had been formed. There was some bungling in enrolment of members. The Apex Court intervened and appointed a Chairman to convene the meeting and to decide each and every disputed question of individual membership. The Chairman decided these questions. The Apex Court upheld the action of the Chairman and observed that the date of an application, the presentation of time of deposit of the membership fee and the amount of qualifying share and filing of the requisite declaration are formalities which could not be disregarded and hence the Chairman was right in arriving at his decision. These observations hardly apply to the facts of the present case. (26). In Vadakhanchery Kshirotpadka Sahakarana Sangam V. Joint Registrar of Coop. Soc. Plaghat (17), the question pertained to rejection of nomination paper. The petitioner was dis-allowed and it was observed that the court could go into the question only if patent illegality or fundamental defects. In P.K. George V The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Calcutta & ors. (18) the Election Officer had added names of members admitted as members during the prohibited period and intervention was held justifiable. This is not so in the present case because membership had accrued to 119 persons much earlier by virtue of the deeming fiction of law. In K.M. Bhaskaran and ors. (18) the Election Officer had added names of members admitted as members during the prohibited period and intervention was held justifiable. This is not so in the present case because membership had accrued to 119 persons much earlier by virtue of the deeming fiction of law. In K.M. Bhaskaran and ors. V. The Returning Officer and Ors. (19), some persons had been admitted to membership within prohibited period and they were not entitled to vote, yet their names were included in the list. It was in these circumstances that the court intervened. (27). After examining all these rulings, we are of the view that this Court can definitely intervene in extra-ordinary circumstances even before election, but then there should be some patent illegality of defect in preparation of electoral rolls. Inclusion of persons, as voters, who were admitted during the prohibited period as members, would be one of such cases. There cannot be any hard and fast rule or cut and dired formula to decide what defect would be fundamental or what illegality so patent as to warrant interference. However, we are of the opinion that present case is not one as to call for interference from this Court. (28). We therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.