Sankarasubban, J.

Petitioner in the original Petition is the appellant. By Ext. P1, the third respondent notified that election will be held to Defect to live Senate of the University of Kerala 20 members by the Registered Graduates from among themselves. The programme for the election was given in the notification. According to Ext. P1 notification, scrutiny of the nomination was to take place at 11.30 A.M. on 5.1.1995. Nominations have

to be made in the prescribed form, copies of which will be supplied from the office of the Registrar to the electors on request. Petitioner filed his nomination in the prescribed form in response to the notification. At the time of scrutiny, there was no objection to the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination. But the Returning Officer rejected his nomination without assigning any reason. By Ext. P3, petitioner requested the Returning Officer to inform the reasons for rejecting the nomination. Then the petitioner was orally informed that the nomination was rejected because the petitioner did not strike off either item 2 or 3 in his nomination paper under the title "Consent and affidavit". Thereafter, petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition before the Vice Chancellor challenging the order of (he Returning Officer rejecting his nomination. Ext.P4 was filed on 6.1.1995. But since there was no response from the Vice Chancellor, he filed the Original Petition on 9.1.1995. The original petition was admitted on 10.1.1995 and on the same day by the order in C.M.P. No. 699/95, the third respondent was directed to accept the petitioner's nomination and allow him to participate in the election. The acceptance of the nomination, participation and election was subject to the result of the Original Petition. Accordingly, petitioner's nomination was accepted and he participated in the election. He was declared elected in the first round itself. Subsequently, the Original Petition was heard and it was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

2. Shri. Thomas Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the third respondent went wrong in rejecting the appellant's nomination. He contented that the nomination could be rejected only on the grounds mentioned in Statute 37 of the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to various Authorities or bodies ) First Statutes, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Statutes'). His second contention was. that it was not necessary to strike off items 2 and 3 under the title "Consent and affidavit", since the previous Senate of the Kerala University had ceased to exist from 22,10.1993, when Section 23A was introduced in the Kerala University Act.

3. Shri. K.Sudhakaran, learned counsel on behalf of the fourth respondent, on instructions submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, since there is an alternate remedy to challenge the election by filing an election petition. He submitted further that the Returning Officer was well within his right when he rejected the nomination paper as it was not duly filled up.

4. We shall first deal with the contention raised by Shri. K.Sudhakaran, learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the Original Petition itself is not maintainable, since an alternate remedy is provided under Statute 29 of the Statutes. It is not an invariable rule that whenever there is an alternate remedy, this Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of patent illegalities and lack of jurisdiction, this Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and will not relegate the parties to the alternate remedies. The alternate remedy has not stood as a bar when this Court found that the acceptance of rejection of the nomination was illegal-vide anthrayose v. Senior Inspector of Co-op. Societies (1992(2) KLT 489) and Pankajciksha

Panicker v. Venugopalan Nair (1993(2) KLT 641).

5. Now we shall consider the question whether the rejection of the appellan