The judgment emphasizes the availability of alternative remedies under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and the need for expeditious disposal of election disputes.

SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, Actg. C.J. :

By consent of the learned advocates for the contesting parties, we take the appeals for hearing.

2. These appeals are against judgment and order dated July 28, 2015 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in Writ Petition No. 31005 of 1995. By the order impugned, the Hon’ble single Judge, inter alia, passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated July 23, 2015 passed by the Returning Officer for Election of the Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Limited, rejecting the nomination of the candidature of the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in these appeals, for election of the Board of Directors of the said Federation.

3. The writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in the appeals, is a member of the respondent No. 8-Srikanteshwara Multipurpose Co-operative Society. He was co-opted as a Director of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 8. The respondent No. 8 is stated to be a member of the Mysore District Co-operative Union. At the time of holding election of the Mysore District Co-operative Union, the respondent No. 8 nominated the writ petitioner the respondent No. 1 in these appeals to contest the election of the respondent No. 7-Mysore District Co-operative Union. The writ petitioner was elected as a Director of the respondent No. 7 also.

As a Director, the writ petitioner claims that he was entitled to contest for election of the respondent No. 5-the Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Limited.

4. The election of writ petitioner as a Director of the respondent No. 7 is challenged in a dispute under S. 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, before the Registrar of Co-operative Society. The matter is now pending before the Joint Registrar concerned.

Two disputes were filed challenging the election of the Directors of the Mysore District Co-operative Union. The first challenge was in relation to the entire election. The second challenge was specifically against the writ petitioner, questioning his eligibility to contest the election of the respondent No. 7.

5. However, as the nomination of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer, the writ petitioner approached this Court and obtained ad interim order of injunction, as indicated hereinabove, from the Hon’ble single Judge.

6. These appeals are filed challenging the order of the Hon’ble single Judge. A Division Bench of this Court while entertaining these appeals, inter alia, passed an interim order on July 31, 2015 permitting the authorities to hold the election scheduled for August 1, 2015. However, it was directed that the results would not be declared till August 4, 2015.

7. The learned Advocate General strenuously argues that the respondent No. 8 was not competent and could not be a member of the respondent No. 7, by drawing our attention to the bye-laws of respondent No. 7 — the Mysore District Co-operative Union that membership are open only to primary co-operative societies, taluk level societies and district level societies. He draws our attention to the explanation to bye-law 7 of the respondent No. 7 that primary co-operative societies would have their areas of operations confined to below the taluka level, minimum of having one village. Learned Advocate General draws our attention to the bye-law of the respondent No. 8-Srikanteshwara Multipurpose Co-operative Society and submits that the area of the operation of the Society is extended to the districts of Mysore, Mandya, Chamarajanagar, Hassan and Madikeri. Therefore, learned Advocate General submits that it is neither a primary co-operative society nor a taluk level co-operative society nor a district co-operative society. Learned Advocate General submits, therefore, that the respondent No. 8 is not eligible to become a member of the respondent No. 7. Thus, there was no scope of nominating the writ petitioner to contest the election of the respondent No. 7. He submits that the writ petitioner is not validly elected