The main legal point established in this judgment is that the High Court should not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to settle election disputes when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available under the law.

MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated October 28, 1992 by which he has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the preliminary point that the petitioner has adequate and equally efficacious remedy before the Registrar co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur under Sections 75 and 77 Rajasthan co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) as election has already taken place and result is to be announced. The facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal may be summarised thus.

( 2 ) THE election programme of the Raipur Marketing Co-operative society, Raipur (Pali) was announced and the election was scheduled to be held on August 6, 1992. The non-petitioner No 5 Amar Singh Chouhan also filed his nomination. After bearing the objections, his nomination was rejected. List Annexure-5 of candidates whose nomination were accepted/rejected was duly published at 5 p. m. on August 1,1992 On the direction of the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies the election Officer accepted the nomination paper of the respondent No 5 amar Singh Chouhan and issued fresh list Annexure 7. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the order Annexure 6 of the Deputy Registrar directing the Election Officer to reconsider the nomination of the respondent No. 5 afresh, acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent No. 5 Amar Singh Chouhan and revised list Annexure 7.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 5 filed his caveat. His learned counsel seriously opposed admission of the writ petition After hearing his Dreliminarv objection, it was rejected and the writ petition was admitted.

( 4 ) THE respondents filed their reply, seriously opposing the writ petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single judge dismissed the writ petition as said above.

( 5 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the learned Single Judge was not justified to dismiss the writ petition on the said preliminary objection which had earlier been decided in favour of the petitioner at the time of its admission. He also contended that the Act and Rules have no provision enabling the Election officer to review his earlier order and the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to direct the Election Officer to reconsider the nomination paper of respondent No 5 Amar Singh Chouhan after it had duly been rejected. He lastly contended that it is well settled law that under Article 226, constitution of India Court can invoke its jurisdiction if the impugned order is without jurisdiction even if there is an alternate remedy for challenging it. He relied upon Ajlt Kumar and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1989 (2) RLR 616.

( 6 ) IN reply, it lies been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Advocate that the respondent no. 5 Amar Singh Chouhan only tiled his caveat, his counsel only was heard, notice was not issued to other respondents and they are not estopped from submitting that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 75 of the Act to challenge the said orders. He also contended that it is well settled principle of election law that election should not be held up and the persons aggieved should not be permitted to ventilate individual interest He further contended that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 75 of the Act and the court in exercise of its jurisdiction alaways declines to invoke its jurisdiction is an election dispute if the alternative remedy of election petition is available and the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction in dismissing the writ petition on the said preliminary objection They also contended that the Election Officer was justified to correct the error which he committed by illegally rejecting the nomination-paper of the respondent No. 5. He lastly conten