THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 692 of 2011. JUDGEMENT: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Respondents 1 and 2 filed the writ petition which was disposed of by the Judgement dt. 7.4.2011 directing the 6th respondent/the District Registrar of Societies, Narsaraopet, Guntur District to receive under acknowledgment and for the purpose of record, the names of members of the Managing Committee of Chandra Lift Irrigation, Society (the Society), in accordance with Section 9 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘the 2001 Act’). According to the appellant there was no general body meeting on 12.8.2010 of the Society at which an election was held; the respondents 1 and 2 herein (the writ petitioners) were not elected to the management of the society, nevertheless the 1st respondent addressed a letter dt. 17.8.2010 on behalf of the society to the 6th respondent, purportedly being an application under Section 9 of the 2001 Act for recording the names of the elected members of the Management Committee in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 Act. As the 6th respondent did not immediately receive the application and take it on record, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of as already stated directing the 6th respondent to receive the letter of the 1st respondent dt. 17.8.2010 for the purpose of recording the names of the members of the society. The learned single Judge has rightly pointed out that Section 9 of the 2001 does not consecrate any authority or jurisdiction in the 6th respondent to entertain a doubt as to the validity of the election or to resolve the disputes, if any, among the members of the society and that the proper and singular function of the 6th respondent under Section 9 of the 2001 Act is only to receive any communication sent by the society as to the information pertaining to the management structure of the society. Any disputes including of elections to the Management Committee must be resolved by recourse to remedies under Section 23 of the 2001 Act. It appears that respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit under Section 23 of the 2001 Act before the District Court, Guntur for resolution of the disputes as to the management of the appellant society. If that be the case, it is for the group represented by P.Srinivasa Rao (the appellant) or the group represented by respondents 1 and 2 to assert, deny or establish which of the members of the rival groups/individuals are in management of the society, in such suit. Mere filing of a list of elected members by respondents 1 and 2 herein before the 6th respondent by way of an application under Section 9 of the 2001 Act cannot be conclusive evidence or material of the fact whether the particular set of persons have been duly elected to the management of the society. On the aforesaid analysis, we find no infirmity in the analysis of the relevant facts and the conclusions recorded by the learned single Judge, warranting intra court appellate interference. There are no merits in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 30.8.2011. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 692 of 2011. JUDGEMENT: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 30.08.2011.