IMPORTANT POINT
The availability of an alternative remedy under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, and the proviso under Section 58(2)(c) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

“1. that the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the result qua the election of respondent no.6 to 12 as Directors of Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society, Ahore (Annexure-2) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. That the respondent no. 6 to 12 may not be held eligible to contest election of the Chairman of Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society, Ahore.

3. That the respondent no.6 to 12 may further be held ineligible to participate in any proceedings of Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society, Ahore or any other body/committee/society.

4. That alternatively the Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society, Ahore may be dissolved and fresh elections throughout may be ordered to be held strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

5. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

6. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent No.3-Rajasthan co-operative Election Authority Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur issued notification dated 22.01.2023 (Annexure-1) pertaining to election of different marketing societies of Jalore. Thereafter, the respondent No.4-Election Officer, Jalore published a provisional electoral role dated 28.03.2023. Furthermore the petitioner is fully eligible to contest the election for the Director of Ahore Cooperative Marketing Society and thereby he was elected as a Director of the aforesaid Society.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner during voting procedure got the information that the Election Officer has committed a grave illegality in declaring election result as well as in preparing the voter list of the election in question wherein ineligible candidates are appointed as Director of the aforesaid Society despite of the fact that the candidates (respondent No. 6 to 12) did not have the required eligibility wherein they were required to have share capital of Rs. 1000/- (10 shares of the respective society) in the aforesaid society 30 days prior to the date fixed for election and another mandatory condition that the contesting candidates must have business of minimum Rs. 5000/- with the respective society. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 declared the impugned result dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure-2) and permitted several candidates to cast their vote despite ignoring the aforesaid mandatory conditions.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned election result dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure-2) declared by the respondent No.4 preferred this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as provided under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Election Officer has not followed the required mandatory conditions as prescribed under Rule 45 (6) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Rules, 2003 wherein it is clearly provided that the CEO shall provide the list of members 30 days prior to the date fixed for the poll.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the Section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 an application for admission as members of the Cooperative Society shall lie to the Committee of the respective Society and the said Committee shall decide the application and communicate its decision to the applicant, however, such application was never submitted by the private respondents No. 6 to 12 before the respective Committee.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have committed grave illegality by including the private respondents to cast their vote and contest e