P.D. MULYE, J.

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rule 41 of M P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962.

(2.) The short facts, giving rise to this petition, may be stated in brief, thus: The respondent No. 3 is a registered Co-operative Marketing Society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Nirvachan Adhikari for holding the election of Board of Directors and office Bearers of the said Society known as Kannod Sahakari Vipnan Samity Maryadit, Kannod. Accordingly the election programme was issued as per Annexure-1 dated 19-1-1984.

(4.) The Society has seven elected Directors and two nominated Directors, out of whom one Surendra Singh of Jamgod is one of the nominated Directors as per Annexure 2 dated 4-2-1984.

(5.) The elections were to be held on 8-2-1984, but prior to which respondent No. 4 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dewas, vide Annexure 3 dated 6-2-1984 sent a letter to respondent No. 1 the Nirvachan Adhikari to the effect that the nominated Directors have no right of voting in the election of the President and Vice President of the said Society.

(6.) The petitioner, as also respondent No. 2 Hiralal contested the election for the post of the President of the Society. Accordingly on 8-2-1984 the Seven elected Directors who were present cast their votes, out of which the petitioner got three votes and respondent No. 2 got four votes. Therefore as per Annexure 4 dated 8-2-1984, respondent No. 1 declared respondent No. 2 Hiralal as the President of the said Society. After the declaration of the results, an objection was raised by the petitioner regarding one vote, as according to him the same was ambiguous as it could not be ascertained in whose favour in fact the vote was cast. The respondent No. 1 namely the Nirvachan Adhikari after carefully seeing that ballot paper with the help of a magnifying glass found that there was no ambiguity ab that vote was cast in favour of respondent No. 2. He, therefore, rejected the petitioners objection.

(7.) The petitioner instead of approaching the Registrar under Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, has straightway filed this petition.

(8.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 4 had no jurisdiction or authority to write the letter dated 6-2-1984, Annexure 3. This position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to contend that even though the nominated Directors were present at the said meeting held on 8-2-1984, they were not permitted to cast their votes. But the petition is lacking regarding this material fact. That apart, no affidavit of the nominated Directors has been filed to indicate that they were present at the said meeting 5 that they wanted to participate in the election but that they were prevented from casting their votes. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider this point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the respondents in their returns have categorically stated that neither the nominated Directors were present at the said meeting nor the respondent No. 1 had acted upon the letter Annexure 3 dated 6-2-1984.

(9.) The extcontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Rule 41, sub-clause (22) (b) provides that a mark made in a ballot paper in such a manner that it is ambiguous to which candidate the vote is given shall be rejected. He, therefore, submitted that the very fact that the respondent No. 1 had to see the ballot paper with the help of a magnifying glass, about which there is no provision in the said Rule, itself shows that the mark on the ballot paper was ambiguous. But we see no force in this contention, as respondent No. 1 after examining the bollot papers declared respondent No. 2 elected to the post of the President, he having got four votes. The learned counsel was unable to convince us that there was any such ambiguity in that ballot paper on the basis of which the same ought to have been rejected. Besides, that also becomes a question of disputed fact.

(10.) This petition also deserves to be dismissed on the ground that though the petitioner had an alternative a :d efficacious remedy under Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act to challenge the election of respondent No. 2, which legal position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he having not availed of that forum, but having straight-away rushed to this Court on 19-3-1984 before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 64 of the said Act, he is not entitled to any such relief in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now an exception could be made in this case.

(11.) In the result we see no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs. The amount of security deposit, if any, be returned to the petitioner after due verification. Petition dismissed.