1. M.N. Veerappa, son of Nagarajappa, Mugoor, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, the petitioner herein, in order to contest to the Directorship of the 1st respondent Society, the term of which was for the year 198182, had filed his nomination paper. The 2nd respondent, Returning Officer, rejected that nomination paper on 9-8-1981 on the ground that Veerappa, while mentioning in his nomination paper the year for which the election was being held, had mentioned the figure (198081' instead of '1981-82', and also that while mentioning the serial number, instead of mentioning the figure '57', had mentioned as '59'. (Annexure-D).
2. The proposed election was held on 76-8-1981, but without the participation of the petitioner. Results have been declared. Steps are afoot for further selection of the office bearers of that society from amongst the Directors.
3. Now, on 31-8-1981 this petition is presented by Veerappa stating that the rejection of his nomination paper was incorrect; that he had suffered great injustice; that that election held pursuant to the calendar of events referred to above, should be quashed; and that, in the meanwhile, pending disposal of this petition, the Directors should be stopped from meeting and transacting any business including the selection of office bearers.
4. Is taking recourse to Art. 226 of the Constitution alone the, remedy for the alleged injustice said to have been suffered by Veerappa? The Legislature certainly would not have intended that it should be so. S. 70 Karnataka cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (the Act) provides adequate alternative remedy to a person feeling aggrieved like Veeranna. Clause (c) of sub-sec (2) of S. 70 confers power on the Registrar to try 'any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Viee-Charman, Secretary, Treasurer, or Member of a Committee of the Society'. May also see a decision of this Court in Channegowda v. State of Karnataka, 1975 (2) Kant LJ 235,
5. Counsel for the petitioner, while seeking admission of the petitioner referred to a few decisions of this Court including a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sangappa. v. T. R. Srinivasamurthy, : AIR1981Kant114 . But, they are all cases wherein the aggrieved persons had challenged the rejection of their nomination papers prior to the completion of the process of elections. In the instant case Veerappa kept quiet for almost a month after the rejection of his nomination paper and now, after the declaration of results of the election to all the posts of Directors, wants to challenge the entire election. He may do so, but in a proper forum provided in law.
Counsel for the petitioner further argues that facts are all quite clear, do not require any elaborate investigation, and taking recourse to S. 70 of the Act will not be an efficacious remedy and, therefore, the writ be entertained. I am unable to agree with him. Facts being clear and not requiring an in depth investigation alone is no ground to entertain a petition on the writ side when there is an effective alternative remedy in law. Neither would it be appropriate to open the doors of the writ domain of this Court only because the alternate forum provided in the Act may not decide the issue quickly though the procedural law governing such enquiries by those per a speedy authorities may not hamper. It is for the litigant to pursue the course and to pursue with all vigour at his command.
6. I decline to issue Rule. Petition dismissed.
7. Petition dismissed.