( 1 ) THE petitioners in these two petitions challenge the rejection of the nomination paper which was filed at the ensuing election of the Directors of the Federal Society namely the Co-operative Bank in question by the Committee which was set up by the Board of Directors under the relevant rules In the first petition on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 member Society and as its representative and as the member of the Managing Committee petitioner No. 2 Khodabhai Chhaganbhai had filed the nomination for the ensuing election which was to be held on October 31 1972 The said nomination was sought to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner No. 2 was carrying on money lending business. This decision was sought to be taken by the Respondent Election Committee on September 6 1972 merely on the objection but the Chairman of that Committee pointed out to the members that before rejecting the nomination the persons concerned must be heard and that the objectors should also have been asked to remain present. The objectors however did not remain present. On a reconsideration the petitioner was asked to render his explanation and to remain present with his evidence at the hearing objection on September 13 1972 As per proceedings which are recorded in this connection on September 13 1972 a surprising thing happened. Four members of this Election Committee other than the Chairman which consisted only 5 members took up the attitude that they did not want to hear these petitioners. Therefore without hearing the petitioners in both these petitions the nomination papers of tile petitioners were rejected. In the first petition the rejection was on the ground that its representative petitioner No 2 of the member society was carrying on money lending business In the second petition the nomination was rejected on the ground that since many years he was not residing in the area of the petitioner No. 1 member society. It should be noted that in the second petition the nomination was filed to represent also petitioner No. 3 member society. Even that nomination was also similarly rejected. The petitioners in both the cases thereupon under the relevant Rule 8 of the Election Rules approached the District Registrar Respondent No. 1. In appeal the District Registrar however passed an order on September 25 1972 to the effect that these questions were not within his jurisdiction and therefore nothing was required to be decided in that connection He however asked the petitioners to pay the relevant court fees and send the papers to the Board of Nominees. The petitioners have therefore in view of the ensuing election filed the present petitions on October 9 1972 In view of the urgency of these matters an early hearing was given. The Respondents have however filed no affidavit to controvert the allegations in these petitions. The Respondents have at the outset raised various preliminary objections. The first objection was that the alternative remedy of appeal before the nominee was not exhausted. It is true that by way of abundant caution the petitioners have approached the Board as advised by the Registrar. The existing alternative remedy could never be urged as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court especially in such cases where the order is completely arbitrary and perverse and against all principles of natural justice. The relevant Election Rule 8 in Part III provides that the decision of the Election Committee shall be appealable before the District Registrar within a period of 8 days after the intimation of the rejection of the nomination. It is further provided that the District Registrar shall treat this appeal as a dispute under sec. 96 and shall dispose of the matter in accordance with the provisions of 1961 Act and the Rules. The Respondents have vehemently argued including the Advocate General that this provision of appeal at the initial stage was not to the District Registrar as the persona designata. By the two no