The Board of Directors of a co-operative society does not have the jurisdiction to revoke and rescind a resolution inducting members into the society, once the members have been inducted. Such a decision can only be made by the Registrar under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.

P.P. Naolekar, J.-This special appeal is filed against the order of learned single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 538 1/94 on 7-2-1995. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the question involved in this appeal are that the appellant along with 475 persons applied for membership of Jodhpur Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. (for short ‘the Bank’). According to the appellant, he along with 475 members after completing all the necessary formalities and depositing the requisite fees and share money, applied for the membership complying the rules prescribed, for membership. On 5-2-1994, the Board of Directors of the Bank held its meeting, considered the applications and by unanimous decision, accepted all the applications and made them members. In the list of the members, which are newly added to the membership, the appellant’s name is at S. No. 448.

2. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Election Officer for conducting the elections of the Bank, has published the election programme for the election of Board of Directors and other office bearers. The programme was published in the newspaper Rajasthan Patrika. Names of 475 members inducted vide meeting dated 5-2-1994 was not included in the voters’ list. Number 6f objections were filed for non-inclusion of 475 voters. The objections of the appellant for non-inclusion of his name along with 475 members were rejected by the Election Officer. One of the member, who was inducted in the meeting dated 5-2-1994 had initiated proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Department, Jodhpur, under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) for non-inclusion of his name in the voters list published by the Election Officer, Respondent No. 4, and prayed that he be permitted to participate in the election. Directions were issued for inclusion of his name as a member by the Deputy Registrar. Thus, in nutshell, the appellant’s case is that in the meeting held on 5-2-1994 of the Executive Committee, he was inducted along with 475 persons as a member of the Bank and the names could not have been deleted from

the voters list. They have a right to vote and to participate in the election. It is further alleged that in the meeting held, of the Executive Committee on 2-3-1994 the resolution accepting the persons as members dated 5-2-1994, was set aside. It is directed that the membership forms be scrutinised and placed before the Executive Committee. Although it was resolved in the meeting dated 2-3-1994, that enquiry be made of the membership forms, but nothing was done and thus, the resolution passed in the meeting dated 5-2-J994 automatically comes into operation. The members inducted in the meeting dated 5-2-1994 are entitled to participate in the election and inclusion of their names as members. On these allegations, a direction was sought from the Court that the respondents be directed to allow the members referred in Annex. 1 to participate in the election, scheduled to be held on 26-11-1994 or on any other date.

3. Respondent No. 2 the Jodhpur Nagrik Sahkari Bank and Respondent No. 1 filed their separate returns. The points raised in them are more or less similar. According to the respondents, the writ seeking the relief that the persons whose names appear in the list Annex. I with the writ petition, be declared as members of the respondent-Bank and they be allowed to participate in the election, are the disputed questions of fact. Preparation of voters list for election of the members of the Board of Directors of Co-operative Society is a part of election process, the dispute relating to the legality of the voters list is a dispute relating to and connected with the election and such a dispute can only be properly adjudicated by competent authority under Section 75 of the Act. Therefore, the appellants have adequate, efficacious alternative remedy and the Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of