ORDER : 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.01.2019 passed by the respondent No. 4 at Annexure-E to the writ petition, whereby the nomination filed by the petitioner to contest the elections of the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 5-Co-operative Society has been rejected. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the nomination paper was scrutinized by the Returning Officer and was accepted in the presence of the petitioner. However, the same was rejected behind his back without providing an opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the reason for rejecting the nomination papers, inasmuch as the petitioner is a defaulter, is totally against the factual material available on record. It was certified by the concerned bank that the petitioner is in arrears of Rs. 78,356/- and the same can be paid on or before 31.03.2019. Accordingly, the petitioner has made the payment of Rs. 78,356/- on 29.01.2019. Hence, rejection of the nomination paper on the ground that the petitioner is defaulter is unsustainable. 3. It is further submitted that alternative remedy is no bar to entertain writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 is relied upon. 4. At the outset, I am not convinced by the arguments of the learned counsel, inasmuch as invoking the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no cavil on the legal prepositions canvassed by the learned counsel that there is no absolute bar for the writ Court to entertain the writ petition despite the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the statute in relation to an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Arguments of the learned counsel that the nomination paper was rejected behind the back of petitioner itself is a disputed question of fact. This disputed question of fact cannot be construed in this writ jurisdiction. Hence, entertaining of the writ petition on the ground that the order impugned is hit by the principles of natural justice would not arise. 6. Arguments of the learned counsel that the nomination paper was rejected behind the back of petitioner itself is a disputed question of fact. This disputed question of fact cannot be construed in this writ jurisdiction. Hence, entertaining of the writ petition on the ground that the order impugned is hit by the principles of natural justice would not arise. 6. All other grounds urged by the petitioner being based on the factual aspects, the same requires to be adjudicated before the authority empowered under the statute to examine the same. At this juncture, this Court finds it beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Shivappa Ambi and Others vs. Angadi Shekara Basappa and Others, (1998) 4 SCC 529 , wherein it is observed thus:- “4...........The Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. In the present case, under Section 70(2)(C) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or member of Committee of the Society has to be referred to the Registrar by raising a dispute before him. The Registrar is required to decide this in accordance with law.” 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the election proceedings initiated by the Returning Officer in pursuance to the calendar of events notified, cannot be interfered at this stage in the writ jurisdiction. 8. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to resort to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. If such proceedings are initiated by 2nd February, 2019, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law in an expedite manner.