JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. 1. The captioned Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants - petitioners assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.107567/2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1. Notice issued in respect of respondent Nos.2 to 5 are served. 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the order impugned in the captioned Writ Appeal. 4. The appellants-petitioners herein approached the Writ Court aggrieved by the action of the respondents in excluding their names from the voter's list. Before the Writ Court, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 to include their names in the final list of eligible borrower voters and to permit them to cast their votes in the election to the committee of management of respondent No.5, scheduled to be held on 15.12.2024. 5. Learned Single Judge citing the reported judgment rendered in the case of B. Ganganna and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others , ILR 2024 KAR 1901 declined to grant any indulgence thereby relegating the petitioners to avail remedy provided under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act , 1959. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-petitioners citing the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of H.S. Raju and others vs. State of Karnataka and others , 2022 (4) AKR 775 has contended that in the light of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment cited supra, he would contend that the order impugned needs reversal. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in H.S. Raju and others vs. State of Karnataka and others (cited supra) as well as to the judgment delivered in an identical matter in Ittappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others (W.P. No. 107575/2024). 8. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgments cited supra do not appear to advance the case of the petitioners–appellants herein. Both judgments, heavily relied upon by the petitioners, pertain to instances where the writ petitions were instituted prior to the conclusion of the election process, and in those cases, the Writ Court had granted interim relief by permitting the alleged ineligible voters to cast their votes. Both judgments, heavily relied upon by the petitioners, pertain to instances where the writ petitions were instituted prior to the conclusion of the election process, and in those cases, the Writ Court had granted interim relief by permitting the alleged ineligible voters to cast their votes. It was in this specific context that the learned Single Judges, while referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and of this Court in Sri.B. Ganganna and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others (both cited supra), arrived at the conclusion that the votes cast by such ineligible voters were liable to be counted. This conclusion was drawn particularly because the Returning Officers, in both cases, had not seriously disputed the allegation that individual notices were not issued to those members who had been declared ineligible. Consequently, the Writ Court directed that the dispute regarding the validity of the voters' list and the right to vote be adjudicated under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act , 1959, thus relegating the parties to the alternative remedy prescribed by statute. 9. We have also given our anxious consideration to the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Sri B. Ganganna and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others (cited supra), wherein reliance was also placed upon an earlier decision rendered in Mohammad Beary and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others (W.P. No. 29271/2023 and connected matters). Upon a closer examination of the principles enunciated in both these decisions, it becomes evident that the learned Single Judges were of the considered view that any person aggrieved by the non-inclusion of members in the voter's list of a Co-operative Society ought not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in light of the efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 70 (2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act , 1959. In Mohammad Beary’s case, the learned Single Judge categorically held that a writ petition challenging the electoral list was not maintainable at all. In Mohammad Beary’s case, the learned Single Judge categorically held that a writ petition challenging the electoral list was not maintainable at all. In the subsequent judgment in Sri B. Ganganna’s case, the learned Single Judge, while agreeing in principle with the above position, made a further distinction: although an appeal may not lie against an infraction of the procedure under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not entirely ousted. It may still be invoked in exceptional cases where there is tangible material to demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice or a manifest illegality in the preparation of the voters' list. 10. In the present case, the elections were scheduled to be held on 15.12.2024, and it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were denied participation in the electoral process. However, applying the legal principles laid down in Mohammad Bearyand Sri B. Ganganna (both cited supra), we are unable to discern any material irregularity or procedural impropriety that would justify interference with the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, in the present matter, has rightly relied on the binding principles enunciated in the aforementioned decisions, and we find no compelling reason to deviate from the same. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity that would warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.