The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court could interfere under Art.226 of the Constitution of India if the rejection of nomination papers in an election is patently bad, manifestly wrong, arbitrary or perverse, without requiring the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy.

Jaganadha Rao, C.J.:

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing the Writ Petition, O.P.No.16063 of 1992 by judgment dated 18-12-1992, on the ground that the appellants-writ petitioners have an effective alternative remedy under S.69(2)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to question the rejection of the nomination papers of the appellants. Though eight persons filed the writ petition, this writ appeal is pressed only by five among them, namely, writ petitioners 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: The election to the Board of Directors of the Naranganam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Naranganam, Pathanamthitta, was notified to be conducted as per Ext.P1 notification issued under R.35(3)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Out of nine wards, one is reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and another is reserved for women. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 30-11-1992. The appellants filed their nomination papers along with a declaration in the prescribed form. On the dale of scrutiny, namely, 1-12-1992, the nomination papers of the appellants were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that there was some mistake in the affidavits filed by the appellants. The date of election was notified as 21-12-1992. But instead of mentioning the said date, the appellants mentioned the date of election as 30-11-1992, which was the last date for filing the nomination papers. It was never in dispute by anybody that election as it then notified as 21-12-1992 was within-the knowledge of the Returning Officer. None the less, he rejected the nomination papers of lie appellants on the ground that the affidavit which was to be filed along with the declaration mentioned the date of election as 30-11-1992 instead of 21-12-1992. Rule 35(3)(c)(2) specifics only a declaration signed by the candidate proposed for election is to be filed that he is willing to stand for election. That Rule reads as follows:

"35(3)(c)(u). Every nomination paper shall be signed by two members whose names are included in the list of members. One of the members shall sign the Form as proposer and the other as seconder for the nomination. The nomination paper shall also contain a declaration signed by the candidate proposed for election to the effect that he is willing to stand for election."

It will be noticed that the above said rule does not specifically require that the declaration should mention the dale of election In fact, the filing of the affidavit is not strictly prescribed by the Act or the Rules, but the same is required on the ground that the above said Rule contemplates 'declaration' to be signed by the candidate proposed for the election. The petitioners therefore contend that the rejection of -heir nomination papers was wholly untenable. Ext.P2(b) is the pro forma of the affidavit, while Ext.P2(a) is a copy of the nomination paper. The Returning Officer rejected the representations of the appellants and passed Ext.P3 order dated 2-12-1992 staling that the nomination papers were rejected, that the date of election mentioned in the affidavit filed by the appellants was wrong, and that it was not 30-11-1992, but was 21-12-1992. Questioning the rejection of the nomination papers of the appellants-petitioners by the Returning Officer by Ext.P3 order, the appellants approached this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a write Petitioner' for quashing Ext.P3 order. Consequential direction is also sought to include the names of the appellants in the final list of candidates for election to the Committee of the second respondent-society.

3. It may be noticed that in fact the election did not lake place on 21-12-1992, but it stood adjourned for other reasons, and u is now scheduled to lake place on 6-2-1993. This was because of various prohibitory orders, in the area concerned, and also law and order problems.

4. The