1. The prayers of the petitioner in this writ petition are as under:-

(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 9.10.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 6 whereby and whereunder the Respondent NO.6 has been pleased to reject the nomination paper filed by the petitioner to contest the election of Araria Vyapar Mandal for the post of Chairman on the ground that the petitioner is defaulter of Bank and has accepted the single valid nomination for the said post filed by the Respondent No.9.

(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent No. 6 to accept the nomination filed by the petitioner to contest the election of Chairman for Araria Vyapar Mandal on the ground that in view of the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by a Bench of this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16142 of 2014 and the order issued by the Respondent No.2 in compliance thereof and the requirements of Section 41 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, the Respondent No. 6 ought not to have rejected the nomination of the petitioner merely because the Bank has sent a list of defaulter to the Respondent No. 6 which was issued by the Bank itself on 6.10.2017.

(III) For a declaration that if defaulter of a society is disqualified to contest the election of another society, the law would equally apply to all candidates and the Respondent No. 6 was not justified to reject the petitioner's nomination if he has accepted the nomination of other candidates, who had filed their nomination to contest for other post.

(IV) To debar the Respondent No.6 and all other Officers, who persuaded or pressurized the Respondent No.6 to reject the nomination of the petitioner to be associated with the conduct of any future election on the ground that they have tinkered with the free and fair conduct of Cooperative election of Vyapar Mandal, Araria.

(V) For issuance Of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under. the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the State Election Authority had declared election for the Managing Committee of Block Vyapar Mandal, Araria. The Returning Officer had, issued detail schedule of election, according to which the date of filing of nomination was 7.10.2017, the date of scrutiny of nomination was 9.10.2017, the date of withdrawal of nomination was 10.10.2017 and the date of election was fixed on 17.10.2017. Pursuant to the aforesaid schedule of election, for the post of Chairman, four nominations were filed, one by the writ petitioner, the other by the Respondent No.9, the third by one Sakil Kumar Yadav and the fourth by one Md. Imran. After scrutiny, the nomination of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Society was defaulter.

3. Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner is gross example of arbitrary action on his part. He submitted that the nomination of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he is defaulter whereas nomination of Md. Imran was accepted even though the Society to which he was Chairman was also mentioned in the same. list of defaulter. He contended that the Returning Officer had neither provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor had be discussed about the letter of the Registrar, Cooperative Society by which it was directed that no nomination would be rejected unless the Society concerned has been declared defaulter upon adjudication under Section 41 of the Cooperative Societies Act. He submitted that this case is an exception to the normal conduct of the Returning Officer when he accepts or rejects a nomination and under the exceptional circumstance a writ petition only is the remedy because the alternative remedy of election petition would not be ef