(1.) THE petitioners are all members and voters of Gangarampur Matsyajibi samabay Samity Limited (hereafter the said society). They call in question a notice issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Dakshin Dinajpur, balurghat bearing Memo No. 101 dated 22. 5. 07. By the said notice, a programme for election of delegates was notified and all the members of the said society were called upon to cast their respective votes by raising of hands. It was further mentioned therein that the said notice was being issued in terms of an order issued by the Co-operation Department, Government of west Bengal dated 9. 4. 07 and that guidelines for election of delegates framed by the Board of Directors of the said society in its meeting held on 21. 9. 03 would be followed.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that in directing adherence to the aforesaid guidelines which were formulated by the erstwhile Board of Directors dated 21. 9. 03 for the purpose of holding of election of delegates, the Assistant director of Fisheries has committed grave error of law.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to an order dated 15. 10. 03 in Dispute Case No. 1/03-04 wherein, it has been held by the Director of Fisheries and ex-officio Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal that election of Board of Directors of the said society held on 13. 2. 03 was bad in law and void and that the Board of directors of the Board elected on 13. 2. 03 would have to vacate office forthwith, and pre-election status quo was directed to be restored for holding fresh election in terms of the statutory provisions governing the field. He further submitted that since the said order of the Directors of Fisheries has not been set aside and is still effective, the purported guidelines framed by the board in its meeting held on 21. 9. 03 cannot survive and therefore the Additional director of Fisheries while issuing the impugned notice could not have direct that the said guidelines would be followed. He also questioned the stipulation in the notice that casting of votes would be by raising of hands. According to him, polling ought to be conducted on the basis of secret ballots and, therefore, if any election is held in terms of the impugned notice, the same would be absolutely illegal and dehors the statutory provisions. He, accordingly, prayed for extension of the interim order of stay.

(4.) MR. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the notice issued by the additional Director of Fisheries, they have a remedy provided by Section 95 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 to raise a dispute before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In view thereof, he submitted, the petitioners ought to be granted liberty to ventilate their grievance before the registrar of Co-operative Societies at the first instance and this Court should be loath to entertain the writ petition.

(5.) IN support of his submission, Mr. Bhattacharya relied on the Special bench decision of this Court reported in 1990 (1) CHN 404 : Anjan Choudhury v. Anandaneer Co-operative Registered Housing Society and Ors. and the decision reported in 80 CWN 917 [LQ/CalHC/1976/91] , Jessops Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal and Ors. for the proposition that holding of election being an issue related to the affairs of a co-operative society, any dispute in respect thereof is capable of being adjudicated by the Registrar in terms of Section 95 of the. He also cited the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 1703, K. K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, and relied on the following passage. "it is well settled law that while Article 226 of the Constitution confers a wide power on the High Court there are equally well-settled limitations which this Court has repeatedly pointed out on the exercise of such power. One of them which is relevant for the present case is that where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the court should keep its hands off. This is more particularly so where the dispute relates to an election". (Emphasis supplied)

(6.) HE also relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 1566 [LQ/SC/1998/317] , Umesh Shivappa Ambiv. Angadi Shekara Basappa wherein following K. K. Shrivastava (supra), it has been held that once election has been held, challenge thereto in a writ petition would not ordinarily be entertained.

(7.) IN reply, Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel urged this Court not to relegate the petitioners to the Registrar for the simple reason that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for maintaining a writ petition and in this connection he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 [LQ/SC/1998/1044] whirlpool Corporation Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks.

(8.) DECISIONS are legion that the rule which requires exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. At any rate, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. The Courts, in their own wisdom, have imposed a restraint on exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective adequate alternative remedy. Situations where High Court would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy have been laid down in Whirlpool (supra).

(9.) HOWSOEVER attractive the submissions of Mr. Dutta appear to be on merits and for whatever it is worth, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in the present case, for, the petitioner No. 1 herein was also the complainant/plaintiff in Dispute Case No. 1 of 03-04 whereupon an order was passed by the Registrar declaring the election to be bad-in-law and void. No exceptional cause exists for which the present petition has to be entertained. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the election notice and/or the election process, it is open to them to approach the Registrar for ameliorating their grievance. It is not the petitioners case that the Registrar is incapable of granting them appropriate relief. Judicial prudence and propriety demands that this Court exercises restraint in such a case, as has been held in k. K. Shrivastava (supra).

(10.) THIS Court holds that this is not a fit and proper case for exercise of writ powers. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed but without any order for costs.