ORDER : 1. Learned advocate Mr. Kunnal P. Vaishnav seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1. Permission as prayed for, is granted. Registry to accept the same and place it on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the result of election to the Board of Directors of respondent No.3 - Bank, which is alleged to have been conducted without the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of Section 10A(2)(A) of the Indian Banking Regulation Act, 1949, as amended. 3. Learned senior advocate Ms. Megha Jani assisted by the learned advocate Ms. Ritu Guru for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the elections to the Board of Directors of respondent No.3 - Bank took place on 11.01.2026. She submits that in the said election, the Election Officer has not followed the mandate of Section 10A(2)(A) of the Indian Banking Regulation Act. Learned advocate further submits that six candidates, who have been elected in the present elections, are not qualified in terms of the provisions of the said Act. She submits that respondent No.4-Election Officer has not followed the mandate of Section 10A(2)(A) of the Indian Banking Regulation Act and therefore, the elections be quashed and set aside and fresh elections be held. 3.1 Learned senior advocate for the petitioner in support of her contentions with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shree Kanaiya Khet Utpadan Kharid Vechan Sahakari Mandali Limited through Chairman/Secretary Vs. Arshibhai Devabhai Duva, 2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 25053. She submits that the present writ petition be entertained and the prayers prayed for by the present petitioner be granted. 4. Heard learned senior advocate Ms. Megh Jani assisted by learned advocate Ms. Ritu Guru for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr. Amar Bhatt with learned advocate Mr. K.P. Vaishnav for respondent No.1-Bank.Considered the submissions. 5. In the present case, the petitioner is one of the candidates, who has contested the election from the general category / constituency for the Board of Directors of the respondent No.3- Bank and was unsuccessful. Ritu Guru for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr. Amar Bhatt with learned advocate Mr. K.P. Vaishnav for respondent No.1-Bank.Considered the submissions. 5. In the present case, the petitioner is one of the candidates, who has contested the election from the general category / constituency for the Board of Directors of the respondent No.3- Bank and was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition contending that respondent No.4- Election Officer has not followed the mandate of Section 10A(2)(A) of the Indian Banking Regulation Act, 1949 during the election process and thereby has permitted five candidates in the general category and one candidate in women category to contest the elections and the said persons have also been elected in the present elections. The petitioner has also never raised this objection during the whole election process before the Election Officer. 6. In case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Ors. (2024) 6 SCC 579 , it has been held thus:- “22. The law with regard to entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of availability of alternative remedy is well settled. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260 : 2010 INSC 428, this Court observed thus : (SCC p. 123, paras 43-45) “43. Unfortunately, the High Court [Satyawati Tondon v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2608] overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self- imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.” 23 - 38 xxx xxx xxx 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.” 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative efficacious statutory remedy under the statute. The present writ petition is accordingly not entertained. All the contentions raised in the present writ petition are kept open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative efficacious statutory remedy under the statute. The present writ petition is accordingly not entertained. All the contentions raised in the present writ petition are kept open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no opinion is expressed thereon. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.