JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the State. The State Election Authority is represented by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent no.8.

2. The petitioner claimed to be one of the candidate contested for the post of Director (male) unreserved category seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to hold and declare election dated 12.04.2023, conducted for the constitution of Managing Committee of District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Purnea as null and void.

3. The grounds set forth to challenge the Election dated 12.04.2023 are mainly revolves around non-compliance of the Rules 21(S)(1) and 21(S)(9) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Bihar State Election Authority while conducting the election, in question, has completely ignored the mandatory provisions of Rules 21(S) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1959’), as the ballot paper containing the name of contesting candidate was without any election Symbol against the name of the contesting candidates. The provision of Rule 21(S)(1) contemplates that the voter shall mark "X" on the election symbol of the contesting candidate in whose favour a voter desires to cast his vote, but despite the mandatory provision, as noted above, instead of marking “X” the ballot shows “Y” tick marks. Besides the aforesaid fact, the non-allotment of election symbol against the name of the contesting candidate has created a lot of confusion amongst the voters, who are illiterate and unable to read the name of the contesting candidates.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the mandatory rules of the Rules, 1959 has not been followed, which goes to the root of the entire election and thus the High Court can very well look into the matter and pass necessary order in holding the entire election, in question, as null and void.

6. While summing up the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not precluded to entertain such petition, if the very order/action of the authority concerned is wholly without jurisdiction; nonetheless the alternative remedy is not a bar in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has also been placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahni Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107 wherein while dealing with the Principle of rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction on account of availability of an alternative remedy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged. [See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 11. The present case attracts applicability of first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In