Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application has been preferred by the petitioner against the Notice, contained in Order No. 199, dated February 4, 2005, issued by the 2nd respondent. Registrar of trade Union under Section 10 (b) of the Trade unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as 1926 Act), whereby and whereunder the petitioner was asked as to why its registration be not cancelled. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has also challenged the order dated May 6, 2005 passed by the said 2nd respondent, whereby and whereunder in exercise of power under Section 10 (b) of the 1 1926 Act, the petitioners registration has been cancelled. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of respondents, opposed the writ petition and raised preliminary objection, there being alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. This issue shall be discussed at appropriate stage. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Trade Union is about 70 years old. It is guided by the rules adopted by the Executive Committee on August 10, 1956, which is circulated and published before every election of the Union. There are -different units under Tata Iron and Steel company (tisco for short) and its attached departments. About 20,000 workmen were members of the petitioner Union which has 214 constituencies for which 214 Executive members were used to be elected. Many of the departments such as M. L and S. M. were closed and the Town Division having a total of 15 constituencies were separated and formed as a new Company, named. JUSCO. Similarly, agrico having four Constituencies were also closed, but some of the work force of the above departments were adjusted in the other departments and thus enhancing the number of seats for other Constituencies. Because of above restructuring, the total number of departments got reduced and some existing departments having enhanced work force, as a result, the total number of seats and constituencies were brought down to 193. ( 5 ) IT appears that the election was to be held in the year 2004-05. The Executive committee in its meeting held on December 27, 2004, decided to hold election and the resolution was confirmed by the said Executive committee, in its meeting dated December 31, 2004. ( 5 ) IT appears that the election was to be held in the year 2004-05. The Executive committee in its meeting held on December 27, 2004, decided to hold election and the resolution was confirmed by the said Executive committee, in its meeting dated December 31, 2004. According to the petitioner, notice of the election was published on December 31, 2004; on January 1, 2005, Returning Officer was nominated and one Sri Ajay Kumar Singh was appomted as Returning Officer. Another election Sub-Committee was constituted comprising of six members, apart from the president, who is the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Election Sub- Committee ( 6 ) FURTHER case of the petitioner is that the election Committee circulated the Election rule. On January 4, 2005, Election programme was also circulated in which various dates for obtaining nomination forms, submission of forms, notification of proposed candidates, publication of the final list of the candidates etc were detailed. The voters were to cast secret ballot as per the rules ( 7 ) FURTHER case of the petitioner is that the union being affiliated by the Indian National trade Union Congress (INTUC) the present body nominated one Shri M D. Vishwakarma, joint Secretary, INTUC, Jharkhand State to function as Election observer during the election which was scheduled to be held on january 15, 2005. ( 8 ) IT appears that the President of the union was elected who nominated the office bearers of the Executive Committee. The matter was sent to the Registrar, Co-operative societies who refused to register the names of office bearers who were shown to be the newly nominated office bearers of the Executive committee. ( 9 ) THE 2nd respondent, thereafter issued an order No. 192, dated February 4, 2005, on a complaint preferred by one S. N. Singh In the said order while the manner in which the office bearers of the Executive Committee were nominated was shown and it was informed that the election having not held in a proper manner, the old Executive Committee and its office bearers shall continue to look into the day-to-day work. The Registrar, Trade Union also directed to hold election of office bearers of the Executive Committee in accordance with law/rules. The Registrar, Trade Union also directed to hold election of office bearers of the Executive Committee in accordance with law/rules. ( 10 ) IT is informed that the petitioner has already challenged the aforesaid Order No. 192, dated February 4, 2005 issued by registrar, Trade Unions by filing a separate writ petition which is pending before this court. ( 11 ) THE 2nd respondent the Registrar, trade Unions, Jharkhand on the same date issued impugned Notice vide Order No 191, dated February 4, 2005 under Section 10 (b) of the 1926 Act and asked as to why its registration be not cancelled On receipt of reply, the registration of the Union has been cancelled by the 2nd respondent vide impugned order dated may 6, 2005 ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner while accepted that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide the validity of any election, submitted that the impugned notice, contained in Memo No 191, dated February 4, 2005 and the order dated may 6, 2005 are without jurisdiction according to him, there was no case made out to initiate any action under Section 10 (b) of the 1926 Act. There was also no occasion to issue any notice or cancelling the registration ( 13 ) IT was further submitted that under section 10 (b) of the 1926 Act, the Registrar has been empowered to cancel registration, only if he is satisfied that the certificate has been obtained by fraud or mistake or that the Trade union has ceased to exist or has willfully and after notice from the Registrar contravened any provisions of the Act or allowed any rule to continue in course, which is in consistency with any such provision or has rescinded any rule providing for any matter provision for which is required by Section 6, but that is not the case of the petitioner, no such violation having alleged. ( 14 ) LEARNED Advocate General for the state submitted that a rule under Section 6 of the 1926 Act has been framed for the petitioners union. ( 14 ) LEARNED Advocate General for the state submitted that a rule under Section 6 of the 1926 Act has been framed for the petitioners union. Under the said rule, the manner in which the office bearers of the Executive Committee shall be elected and removed, has been prescribed It was informed that though the petitioner Union elected its President, none of the members of the Executive Committee or office bearers were elected, but they were nominated by the President, against the provisions of law It was submitted that such fraud having played by the petitioner Union, election of the office bearers having not been made, the action of the Union being violative of Section 6 of the 1926 Act, it was open to the Registrar to issue show cause and to cancel the registration. ( 15 ) ON the other hand, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the action, in question, being not covered under Section 10 (b), the notice and the impugned order issued by the Registrar are without jurisdiction. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that before cancellation of registration, as per Section 10 (b), it was mandatory on the part of the Registrar to issue two notices on the Union, a prior notice, apart from one for the purposed action for cancellation of registration. ( 17 ) IN this connection, he placed reliance on patna High Court decision in the case of, radheyshyam Singh v. Bata Mazdoor Union 1977 PLJR 286, Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Registrar of Trade Union and Joint labour Commissioner v. Lake Palace Hotel, karyakarta Union and another 1998-III-LLJ, (Suppl)-1226 (Raj-DB) and the Mysore High court decision in the case of Mysore Iron and steel Works, Labourers Association v. Labour commissioner 1972 LIC 799. ( 18 ) RELIANCE was also placed on a Bombay high Court decision in the case of Saraswat co. of Bank Employees Union v State of maharashtra and others 1997-I-LLJ-232 (Bom-DB) wherein the Court held that the registrar of the Trade Union cannot cancel registration unless there is willful and" intentional contravention of any provisions ot the Trade Union Act. ( 19 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is an alternative remedy of appeal available to petitioner under section 11 (aa) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. ( 19 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is an alternative remedy of appeal available to petitioner under section 11 (aa) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Any person aggrieved by the withdrawal or cancellation of a certificate of registration, may prefer appeal before the Court/tribunal as stipulated therein. ( 20 ) AGAINST the impugned order, some of the members of the Trade Union, namely, rajendra Mishra and another moved before this court in W. P. (L) 2754 of 2005. A Bench of this Court vide its order dated July 5, 2005 refused to interfere with the order, there being statutory provision of appeal under the Act. ( 21 ) IN the circumstances, to maintain judicial decorum and conformity with the order passed by this Court m another case, I am also not inclined to decide the issues as raised by the petitioner, there being an alternative remedy of appeal available to it. ( 22 ) THE writ petitioner is given liberty to prefer appeal. If the appeal is preferred within one month, the competent Court/tribunal is expected to decide the appeal on an early date. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. --- *** --- .