D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Badhe, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. In the present petition, declaration is sought by the petitioners in respect of list dated 15-7-1999, which has been placed on the notice board by respondent No. 3 on 25-11-1999 as illegal and not as per directions given by this Court as well as same does not contain names of the members, who are already legally admitted before 30-6-1987. Shri Badhe, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that during pendency of the present petition, election of Managing Committee of respondent No. 1 had taken place and though the said election is challenged by way of election dispute before the Co-operative Court, the present petition is maintainable and this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can exercise power to set aside such election, which is conducted on the basis of voters’ list, which is per se illegal and not as per directions issued by this Court as well as Member, Co-operative Appellate Court. In order to substantiate the contention regarding aspect of maintainability of writ petition, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Shivaji Marotrao Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra and others, .
3. Learned Counsel Shri Badhe further contended that in case this Court is not inclined to accept his contention in respect of maintainability of writ petition in view of election dispute already pending before the competent Co-operative Court, then on the basis of various illegalities committed by the respondents, direction may be given to the Co-operative Court to dispose of the election dispute within a stipulated period and opportunity be given to the petitioners to approach Co-operative Court for the purpose of intervention in the matter.
4. When the petition was filed seeking above referred directions, election of respondent No. 1 Society was not held. However, during pendency of the petition, election of Managing Committee of the respondent No. 1 society has been held. It is also not in dispute that same is challenged by way of election dispute before the Co-operative Court, which is competent to consider all the aspects in respect of validity of election held by the respondent No. 1 Society. It is also well settled that person is entitled to pursue only one remedy at a time available under law and he is not entitled to pursue various remedies though available in law at a time before forums. It is also not in dispute that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, jurisdiction of this Court is not barred to entertain the petition. However, when alternate remedy is not only available, but also availed, in such situation, in my opinion, this Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and allow alternate statutory remedy, which is equally quick and efficacious, to take its own course rather than exercising extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, which is admittedly meant for situations otherwise not covered under any statute or when there is no remedy available elsewhere.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, in my opinion, the petition does not survive in view of election dispute pending before the Co-operative Court, which is an alternate quick and efficacious remedy available under the statute and same is normally required to be pursued by the aggrieved party in election. Since, for the reasons stated hereinabove I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in view of alternate remedy, contentions raised by petitioners on merit of the matter need not be gone into and it should be left to the Co-operative Court to adjudicate on the same in the election dispute.
6. In that view of the matter, petition is dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to approach the Co-operative Court for the purpose of intervening in the proceedings before the Co-operative Court and if such application is made, Co-operative Court shall dispose of the same on its own merits and according to law. In the circumstances, it will be appropriate in the interest of justice to direct the Co-operative Court to dispose of the election dispute within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this judgment after giving appropriate opportunity to the parties to the dispute.
7. In the result, the rule is discharged. No order as to costs.