IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1444 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/09/2008 in WP NO : 403 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: D.Deva Chittam, S/o Devaiah, Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS), Shaligowraram, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector, Nalgonda. 2 the District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 The Divisional Cooperative officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4 The Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS) Shaligowraram, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, Rep.by Chief Executive Officer. 5 Jammu Ramesh, s/o Hanumanthu, R/o Shaligowraram Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6 Vangala Pratap Reddy, s/o Govinda Reddy, Chittalur Village, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1461 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/09/2008 in WP NO : 27414 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Padaga Ambha Bayamma W/o Venkataiah Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies (PACS), Shaligowraram, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collector, Nalgonda. 2 The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District 3 The Chief Executive Officer & Secretary, Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS), Shaligowraram, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 Mamidi Sarvayya Incharge-Chairman, Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS), Shaligowraram Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District 5 Paduri Shankar Reddy MPTC., Native of Chittaloor Village, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1444 of 2008 And WRIT APPEAL No.1461 of 2008 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Since both the writ appeals relate to the same subject matter and do arise out of the common order, dated 13-09-2008, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals as well as the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. 3. W.A.No.1444 of 2008 is directed against the common order, dated 30-09-2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.403 of 2008 (along with W.P.No.27414 of 2007), dismissing the writ petition on the ground that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners therein under sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity “the Act”). 4. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the writ petitions. 5. It appears that a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies, Shaligowraram, Nalgonda District, was held on 22-12-2007 in order to fill up two vacancies viz., President and one Director of the Society. After filling up of the said vacancies, the present writ petition W.P.No.403 of 2008 came to be filed contending that there was no quorum to convene the meeting of the society on 22-12-2007 and accordingly the election of the President and Director is held to be invalid and illegal. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after elaborately discussing the scope of various provisions of the Act, including Section 31 of the Act and Rule 22-A (5) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for brevity the “the Rules”) and also the decisions of the apex Court as well as this Court, recorded a finding that the writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, there is an effective and alternative remedy available to the petitioner to raise a election dispute before the Tribunal, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Act. 7. It has been further observed by the learned Single Judge that since the election process had already been completed, the petitioner cannot avail the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. We have carefully gone through the impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge and we find no reason to interfere with the said conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in order to avail the alternative remedy, the period prescribed under Rule 49- B of the Rules is one month and since the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ appeal, the statutory period prescribed under the Rules had expired and availing of the alternative remedy provided under sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Act would be superfluous. 10. It is to be seen that Rule 49-A of the Rules, which provides the procedure regarding disposal of appeals by Tribunal, postulates that the proceedings of the Tribunal shall be summary and shall be governed as far as practicable by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.). 11. From the above, though, in strict sense, the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable, still it has been made abundantly clear by the said provision that the Tribunal, being the quasi-judicial authority, as far as possible, can regulate its functioning by invoking the procedure provided under C.P.C. 12. In view of the said provision, it cannot be said that the petitioner would be deprived of the right of raising a election dispute under sub- section (3) of Section 61 of the Act. We are of the further view that in view of the language employed under Rule 49-A of the Rules, by necessary implication, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory application to condone the delay in filing such a dispute. 13. Subject to above observations, W.A.No.1444 of 2008 is dismissed. 14. In view of the final orders passed in W.A.No.1444 of 2008, no orders need be passed in W.A.No.1461 of 2008, which is filed against the orders in W.P.No.27414 of 2007, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 21-11-2008. NOTE: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/O) Msr. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1444 of 2008 and WRIT APPEAL No.1461 of 2008 21-11-2008 (Msr)