The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution would not lie against a Co-operative Society, as per the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

B. VENKATASWAMI, J.:- This appeals is by a Co-operative Society against an order of Jagannatha Shetty, J. in W. P. No. 6344 of 1974 (Kant) whereby a writ in the nature of certiorari had been issued, quashing the order of rejection of the nomination of the petitioner by the Society with a further direction to accept the same and proceed with the election to the Board of Directors of the Society.

2. The facts briefly, are as follows:

In connection with the election to the Board of Directors of the Ideal Homes Co-operative Building Society (for convenience, referred to as 'Society'), the respondent herein had submitted his nomination. On an objection by a member, by name Vedavalli, to the effect that the respondent had directly or indirectly an interest in a contract between the Society and a firm by name Bangalore Builders Private Ltd., of which he was the Managing Director, and also on account of a pending litigation between the said firm of builders and the Society, his nomination stood rejected. Aggrieved by the said action, the respondent approached this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution for the issue of appropriate writ or direction quashing the said order of rejection and for acceptance of his nomination.

3. The petition was contested on behalf of the Society on the ground that such rejection was proper and that the case was not a fit one for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, in that the petitioner had a speedy, adequate and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. The learned Single Judge, in effect, came to the conclusion that the Managing Director of the firm of builders referred to, was a distinct and separate entity from the firm as such and, therefore, the respondent could not be said to be a person who had any interest in any contract between the Society and such firm. He, therefore, concluded that the rejection of nomination complained of was on account of an error of law apparent on the face of the record. In this view, he rejected the other contention urged on behalf of the Society based on the alternative remedy available under Section 70 of the Act and issued the writ and direction as prayed for. Hence this appeal by the Society.

5. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended as follows: The conclusion of the learned Judge as to the nature of the interest possessed by the respondent in the Bangalore Builders had been arrived at without taking into account all the facts and circumstances bearing on the issue. At any rate, a clear and detailed investigation of all such facts and circumstances was called for, which could only have been possible in a regular enquiry held for the purpose under Section 70 of the Act, thus enabling the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence for and against such an objection. Further, the contents of the objection statement of Vedavalli was neither detailed nor conclusive enough. In any event, the material already on record would warrant a conclusion that the respondent had indirectly at least sufficient interest in the contract between the Society and the firm of builders, thus entailing his disqualification to stand for the election in question.

6. It was further urged that in view of enunciations contained in certain is of Division Benches of this Court, to which we shall presently advert, the respondent ought to have been non-suited and petition dismissed.

7. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the writ issued had almost been rendered infructuous in that the next election to the Board of the Society would be held in the next month (September, 1975), and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in holding any other election just, about one month prior to it. In substance, this submission would imply that if the nomination of the respondent were accepted for the next election having regard to the law enunciated in the order