JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.P. Paul, counsel for the appellants, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel appears on behalf of respondents No. 1,2 & 3. 2. By means of the present appeal, the appellants challenged the order dated 17.9.2013, passed in Writ Petition No. 49161 of 2013, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants claim to be the members of the general body of the society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, which runs an educational institution in the name of Ajhu Rai Higher Secondary School, Dharamrajganj (Sherwa), Sikrara, Jaunpour. The appellants filed the Writ Petition No. 49161 of 2013 seeking quashing of the election proceedings held by the Assistant Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, Varanasi on 31.8.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the last election was held on 26.6.2006. The term of the Committee of Management was 5 years. To initiate the proceedings for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the Society vide order dated 6.7.2013, the Assistant Registrar finalized the list of 38 members of the general body of the society, and issued the election programme for holding the election on 31.8.2013. In the election held on 31.8.2013, the list containing the names of 5 office bearers and 7 members of the Committee of Management of the Society has been declared, which was challenged in the writ petition. 5. The main contention of the writ petitioner was that out of 38 members, 6 members have already died and 20 members boycotted the election. Since the nomination papers of 4 members had been illegally rejected by the Returning Officer, it was contended that the election was totally farce and, therefore, liable to be declared illegal. Various other contentions have been raised to establish that the election held on 31.8.2013 was illegal. 6. Learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the issue raised in the writ petition can more appropriately be examined by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act on a reference being made by at least one-fourth members. 6. Learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the issue raised in the writ petition can more appropriately be examined by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act on a reference being made by at least one-fourth members. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Advocate has reiterated the submissions, which has been made before the writ Court and made endeavour to demonstrate that the election held on 31.8.2013 was patently illegal and, therefore, liable to be set aside. 8. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that an alternative remedy was/is available to the appellant by filing a reference under Section 25(1) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to entertain the writ petition and asked the appellant to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat University v. Shri N.U. Rajguru and others, AIR 1988 SC 66 . It is further submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in the Case of Babu Ram, Ashok Kumar v. Antarim Zila Parishad, 1964 (2) LAWS (All) 5, has held that a Court of appeal would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below, if the discretion has been exercised in good faith after giving due weight to relevant matters and without being swayed by irrelevant matters. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. In the writ petition, the validity of the election dated 31.8.2013 was challenged on various grounds. There is no dispute that the appellant has an alternative remedy to raise all these issues which have been raised in the writ petition before the Prescribed Authority, under Section 25 (1) of the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Gujarat University v. Shri N.U. Rajguru and others (supra) has held that if an alternative remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be invoked. The Apex Court in the case of Gujarat University v. Shri N.U. Rajguru and others (supra) has held that if an alternative remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be invoked. Para 6 of the Judgment is referred as follows : “It is well-settled that where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the statute. While considering an election dispute it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a fundamental or common law right instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies. In the instant case, there existed no circumstance justifying departure from the normal rule as even the challenge to validity of statute 10 was not pressed by the respondents before the High Court.” 11. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Ram, Ashok Kumar v. Antarim Zila Parishad (supra) has held as follows : “We are called upon to decide only one question in this appeal. That question is should we upset the exercise of discretion by our brother ? A Court of appeal would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below, if the discretion has been exercised in good faith after giving due weight to relevant matters and without being swayed by irrelevant matters. It two views are possible on the question, then also the Court of appeal would not interfere, even though it may exercise discretion differently, were the case to come initially before it. The exercise of discretion should manifestly be wrong.” 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The exercise of discretion should manifestly be wrong.” 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, observed that in case the appellants have already filed a reference under Section 25(1) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority or may file the reference, the Prescribed Authority is directed to dispose of the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. ——————