Judgment :- Srikrishna, C.J. Appeals admitted. Notices made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive services through respective counsel. Appeals called for hearing and heard. 2. In our view, the proceedings before the learned Single Judge were misconceived. After a series of orders, the election to the Managing Committee of the Andoorkonam Service Co-operative Bank was directed to be held. If any person had a legitimate objection to the election, then the remedy which ought have been pursued is the remedy contemplated under Section 69(2)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Instead of doing so, O.P.No.6021 of 2002 was filled by the erstwhile Board of Directors and O.P.No.5927 of 2002 was filled by some other candidates at the election. 3. It is not the function of this court to assume for itself what is the legitimate function of the authority under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Article 226 of the constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and, like all extraordinary remedies, liable to lose its efficacy if invoked too often and for frivolous reasons. It is the bounden duty of this court to maintain the cutting edge of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by restricting its invocation to occasion where injustice cannot be otherwise remedied. 4. There is a legitimate grievance made by the appellant in W.A.No.1948 of 2002 that there was no prayer made for setting aside the election at all and, therefore, there was no necessity to set aside the election. Mr. George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2005/2002, complains that the prayer for setting aside the election was made in O.P.No.5927/2002, but in view of the judgment rendered in O.P.No.6021 of 2002, the learned Single Judge has closed O.P.No.5927/2002. 5. In our view, neither by an order in O.P.No.6021/2002 nor because of O.P.No.5927/2002, was the election liable to be interfered with by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Whatever be the grievances, the original petitioners ought to have pursued remedy under Section 69(2)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. We therefore, see no reason why the writ jurisdiction of this court should be invoked in such matters. As a matter of prudence, it would be necessary to keep intact the election results and leave the parties to their normal remedies. 6. We therefore, see no reason why the writ jurisdiction of this court should be invoked in such matters. As a matter of prudence, it would be necessary to keep intact the election results and leave the parties to their normal remedies. 6. In the result, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the original petitions, leaving it open to the original petitioners to pursue their remedies under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. All contentions are kept open to be urged before any appropriate forum, other than this court. The necessary consequence is that the stay against Returning Officer declaring the result of the election is forthwith vacated. The returning Officer shall declare the result of the election and the elected body shall assume charge immediately.