The statutory right for election to the committee of a Co-operative Society is subject to the limitations imposed by the Co-operative Societies Act, and the remedy for challenging the election must be found in the provisions of the Act itself.

1. Alathur Co-operative Marketing Society has conducted election to the managing committee of the Society, Under the bye-laws of the Society, four members of the committee have to be elected from the delegates representing primary member societies and three members have to be elected from among individual members. The petitioners are delegates of four societies, who were entitled to vote at the election. This fact is admitted. They submitted their nominations. It is stated that they were rejected on an absolutely wrong interpretation of R.45(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, which reads as follows:

"45 Disqualification of a member of a Society to be a Delegate of another Society -- (1) No members shall be appointed to represent a society in any other society and vote if, on the date thirty days prior to the date fixed for a meeting for the conduct of any election relating to the society,

(a) he is in default to the society of which he is a member in respect of any loan or loans taken by him for such period as may be specified in its bye-laws or in any case for a period exceeding three months; or

(b) he is a person against whom any decision, award or order referred to in subsection (3) of S.70 has been obtained; or

(c) he is a member of the other society in his individual capacity.

It is said that their nominations were rejected on the ground that they were not elected as delegates within thirty days of the election and it is contended that R.45(1) is not attracted where the petitioners were not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in R.45(1). Counsel for the contesting respondents contend that R.45(1) has to be read along with R.35 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and the rejection of the nomination papers was proper.

2. After admitting the O.P., in the stay application an order was passed that "the announcement of the result of the election with regard to 'A' class members (delegates from societies) will be stayed until further orders from this Court." The result of the election of the individual members has been published.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the patent illegality committed in the rejection of the nomination of the petitioners, this Court can interfere under Art 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the remedy available under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. He states, relying on a decision in Devassy v. Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1976 KLT. 40), that under R.35(3)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the Committee has to prepare a list of the members qualified to vote at election and where the members are really the societies, the list need show only the names of the societies and not the names of the delegates of those societies. If so, when the petitioners societies were already members in the voter list, the delegates of those societies were entitled to submit their nomination. The disqualification under R.45(1) not being attracted, nomination papers of the petitioners were validly submitted and the rejection was plainly illegal.

4. The question for consideration is whether this Court should bypass the remedies available under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and invoke its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution to interfere in election matters even where fundamental error is committed in the rejection of the nomination papers.

5. It has to be understood that there is no common law right or any general right for election to the committee of a Co-operative Society. It is a right conferred by statute, the Co-operative Societies Act, onthe bye-laws of the Societies. The remedy, therefore, for challenging the election has to be found in the provisions of the Act itself. If so, the discretionary remedy cannot be invoked under Art.226 of the Constitution. This seems to be the principle stated in several decisions cited before me, some of which I shall refer here. In Namhoo Mal v. Hira Mal