The rejection of the nominations was patently illegal, and the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The consequential proceedings of the Returning Officer declaring the appellants as elected to the Managing Committee were also liable to be set aside.

Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

This appeal is filed by respondents 2 to 10 in the writ petition, O.P. 6406 of 1993-K against the judgment dated 21-7-1993 of the learned single judge allowing the writ petition. The respondents 1 to 9 in this appeal are the writ petitioners. Respondent 10 is the first respondent in the writ petition. Respondents 11 to 13 are respondents 11 to 13 in the writ petition.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: The election to the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society (The Kappikadu Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sanghom (D) APCOS, Poovachal P.O., Trivandrum) was to be held on 22-5-1993. The Managing Committee consists of 9 members. On 21-4-1993, as per Ext. P1, election notice was issued by the Returning Officer showing that nine members are to be elected in the election to be held on 22-5-1993. The dates fixed for filing the nomination papers were from 1-5-1993 to 6-5-1993. The scrutiny was to take place on 7-5-1993. The nine respondents (writ petitioners) filed their nominations on time.

3. It is the case of the respondents (writ petitioners) that the Returning Officer initially accepted their nine nomination papers, but that after they left the place, he corrected the endorsement and rejected their nominations on the ground that the column relating to the date of election was not fully filled by the candidates, but was left blank. Then one of the seconders represented to the Returning Officer, but the representation was rejected. In the connected case, OP 6407 of 1993 which was also heard alongwith this OP 6406 of 1993, the nominations were rejected on the ground that the serial number in the voters' list of the first petitioner was wrongly shown and the serial number of the seconder of the second petitioner was also wrongly shown. Later, the Returning Officer gave his reasons for rejection, in writing as per Ext. P3 dated 7-5-1993. The appellants were declared elected uncontested.

4. The writ petition, OP 6406 of 1993 was filed on 13-5-1993. In the CMP. the learned single judge granted suspension of the assumption of charge by the appellants.

5. Finally, this writ petition and the connected writ petition were heard and allowed by judgment dated 21-7-1993, holding that the rejection of the nominations was patently illegal. On the question whether when the nominations are rejected on patently illegal grounds, the affected parties could approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned single judge relied upon the recent rulings of this court in Joy v. Joint Registrar (1989(1) KLT 854) and in Ravi v. Kottayam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd (1993(1) KLT 644) and held that they could. The learned single judge then went further and held that the consequential proceedings of the Returning Officer declaring the appellants as elected to the Managing Committee, were also liable to be set aside. The result was that the nominations of the writ petitioners were to be treated as valid and a fresh election was to be held. It is against this judgment that the appellants have preferred this writ appeal.

6. In this appeal, two contentions are raised. One is that the rejection of the nominations of the writ petitioners was not illegal and that the learned single judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of existence of an effective alternative remedy under S.69 of the co-operative societies act by way of an election petition. The other contention is that even if the High Court could go into the validity of the rejection of the nominations, it cannot, under Article 226, set aside the declaration of the result of the election.

7. So far as the first contention for the appellants is concerned, we are clear, for reasons given in Ravi v. Kottayam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd (1993 (1) KLT 644) and other rulings of this Court that where the rejection of the nomination papers is patently illegal, this Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and need