AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Ajai Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri M.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the election of the respondent No. 6 as Director/Member of the Co-operative Society in question which was held on 29.10.2012.

(2.) Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of taking proceedings under Rule 444C of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 for questioning the election of the respondent No. 6 on the grounds mentioned in the said Rule, and in view of the availability of alternative remedy, no interference is called for in the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri Ajai Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and the writ petition may be entertained despite the existence of such alternative remedy.