JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - The petitioners are Primary Co-operative Agricultural Service Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short the Act) and are members of the Amritsar Central Co-operative Bank Limited. Amritsar (for short the Bank), which is also a society registered under the Act. Under Section 23 of the Act, the final authority of the co-operative society vests in the general body of the members, but a society can form a smaller body which can exercise powers of the general body as per the bye-laws. Under the Model Bye-Laws, the powers of the society are exercised by the Managing Committee to be elected in accordance with the Act and the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules 1963 (for short the Rules). Section 26 of the Act provides for the election and nomination of the members of a committee. Rule 23 of the Rules ibid lays down that election of the members of the committee shall be held in accordance with Appendix C to the rules and para 4 of the said Appendix provides for drawing up of election programme and preparation of zonal list. As per bye-law 30 of the Bank, nine Directors are to be elected by the member societies out of which seven are to be from the Agricultural Service Societies. 2. This writ petition was filed on 6.4.2000 challenging the order dated 17.2.2000, Annexure P-8 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies rejecting the objections regarding formulation of the zones. Further challenge was to the election programme issued on 30.3.2000 for holding election on 27.4.200. It was stated that notices were not sent to all the members, the preparation of zones was not proper inasmuch as some of the societies had not been included in any zone and several development blocks have been included in a single zone, principle of contiguity has not been taken into account and thus the election on the basis of improper zonal list and without notice to the member societies will not be proper. It was further submitted that under para 4 of Appendix C, zonal list and election programme are to be drawn up by the Manager who is defined in para 1(b), as a person appointed by the Registrar, and if no such person was appointed, then by the head of the co-operative society. It was further submitted that under para 4 of Appendix C, zonal list and election programme are to be drawn up by the Manager who is defined in para 1(b), as a person appointed by the Registrar, and if no such person was appointed, then by the head of the co-operative society. While in the present case, the election programme had been drawn up and zonal list prepared by the Managing Director who was himself a candidate, and not by the Manager as required. 3. On 24.4.2000, this Court stayed the election of the officer bearers (through the prayer in the writ petition was to stay the holding of the election of the Directors, which was scheduled to be held on 27.4.2000). The election was, therefore, held as scheduled and respondent Nos. 8 to 15 who were elected as Directors were impleaded as parties, in addition to respondent No. 6 who was already a party. 4. Written statements was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It was submitted that a copy of the cover lists was duly displayed on the notice boards in the offices of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amritsar and the Head Officer of the Amritsar Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Amritsar; notice regarding formulation of zones was duly published in the newspapers and the zones had been duly approved by the Joint Registrar after following the necessary procedure; the Development Block was not maintained as a unit as there were eight blocks but seven zones. It was further stated that the zones have been prepared on the basis of contiguity. Separate written statements were filed by respondent No. 5 and by respondent No. 6. No written statement has been filed by respondent No. 7 who is a Minister of Co-operation in the Government of Punjab and who, it has been stated in paras 27 and 28 of the writ petition, influenced the election. 5. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners has mainly put forward two contentions :- (i) The forming of zones and issuance of election programme was vitiated as the same was issued by respondent No. 6 who was the Managing Director and himself was a candidate from zone no. 1. 5. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners has mainly put forward two contentions :- (i) The forming of zones and issuance of election programme was vitiated as the same was issued by respondent No. 6 who was the Managing Director and himself was a candidate from zone no. 1. (ii) The forming of zones and issuance of election programme could be done only by "the Manager" and not by the "Managing Director" as per para 4 of Appendix C" to the Rules. 6. Mr. Sarin submitted that the writ petition was filed even before the election was held, on the above grounds, and the election having been held during the pendency of the writ petition was liable to be set aside on the same grounds. He also submitted that the authorities acted under the influences of respondent No. 7. 7. Mr. H.L. Sibal, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. He further submitted that the Managing Director has validly prepared the zonal list and validly issued the election programme as in absence of the Manager being nominated by the Registrar, the Managing Director was covered by the definition of Manager under para 1(d) of Appendix C to the Rules. Mr. Sibal also submitted that the fact of the Managing Director himself being a candidate will make no difference as he had merely prepared a proposal for the zones which, were finally approved by the Joint Registrar after hearing the objections in accordance after hearing the objections in accordance with the procedure laid down. He further submitted that once the election had been held, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file an election petition under Section 55 of the Act. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ambi v. Bassappa, 1998(4) S.C.C. 529, in support of his submission. He has also referred to the decision in Madan Gopal v. The Registrar Co-operative Societies Punjab, Chandigarh and others, (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 632, to the effect that no opportunity of hearing was required for finalising the Zones for election to a society. He has also referred to the decision in Madan Gopal v. The Registrar Co-operative Societies Punjab, Chandigarh and others, (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 632, to the effect that no opportunity of hearing was required for finalising the Zones for election to a society. He has also upon relied decision in Narinder Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, (1974)76 P.L.R. 143, to the effect that the Registrar was competent to decide the election dispute: and Smt. Anuj v. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowas, (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 393, to the effect that right to contest the election was just a statutory right. 8. Mr. V.K. Sibal, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 submitted that the writ petitioners were not the candidates for the election and their grievance that only nine nominations were received as other nominations were rejected, was without any substance. It was submitted that no candidate had come forward to say that his nomination was wrongly rejected nor the petitioners had shown that any one who wanted to contest was not allowed to contest the election. Only nine nominations were received and all the candidates were elected unopposed, the question of use of any influence by the Minister did not arise. 9. Mr. Sarin, in reply submitted that alternative remedy was not a bar when question of interpretation of rules was involved and the authorities were under the influence of the Minister. He submitted that purity of election was the essence of democracy and in absence of an independent forum, the departmental remedy could not be held to be effective alternative remedy. He also submitted that the writ petition had been filed before the election and, therefore, the objection of alternative should not be entertained. He submitted that purity of election was the essence of democracy and in absence of an independent forum, the departmental remedy could not be held to be effective alternative remedy. He also submitted that the writ petition had been filed before the election and, therefore, the objection of alternative should not be entertained. He relied upon the decisions in Sher Chand and other v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ferozepur and others, (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 260, to the effect that rejection of the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available was not a universal practice; Chuhar Singh v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab and others, (19894-1)106 P.L.R. 304, support of his submission that alternative remedy was no bar when interpretation of rules was involved; S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 72 and N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 423, in support of his submission that when allegations of mala dide are made, writ petition should not be dismissed without requiring a counter affidavit to be filed to rebut the same. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties nd perused the record, I am of the view that though at first sight, there seemed to be substance in the contention that since respondent No. 6 himself was a candidate, he should not have issued the election programme and prepared the proposal for the zones, but in view of the fact that no person has moved the Court; nor has it been shown that any one who wanted to contest the election was not allowed to do so; the Managing Director is covered by the definition of a Manager under para 1(d) of Appendix C to the Rules, and the proposal of zones and the election programme were approved by the Joint Registrar, I am of the view that it is not a case where the matter should be examined in writ petition. If there is a case of patent injustice or abuse of power or violation of the statutory provisions, a writ petition can be directly entertained, but in the present case, there appears to be no reason to entertain the writ petition on merits, by-passing the statutory remedies available to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.