IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19016 of 2007 Between: Sri G. Subrahmanyam S/o Gangam Naidu O/o Kosalanagaram PACS, Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Kosalanagaram PACS, repby its Secretary/CEO., Vijayapuram (V) & (M), Chittoor District. 2 The Managing Committee, rep byits President, Kosalanagaram PACS, Vijayapuram (V) & (M), Chittoor District 3 The District Co-operative Officer, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 4 The District Collector (Co-operative), Chittoor District, Chittoor. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the suspension order dt 23-02-2006 and also the termination order dt 15-04-2006 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Principles of natural justice and further declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not supplying the following documents: 1. Copies of show cause notice dated 02-01- 2006 of the president, Kosalanagaram PACS along with my acknowledgement. 2. Copies of Show cause Notice dated 27-01-2006 along with postal receipt/ acknowledgement 3. Copies of Suspension order dated 23-02-2006 issued by the Managing Committee and resolution along with my acknowledgement. 4. Copies of termination order of the undersigned issued by the Managing Committee dated 15- 04-2006 and resolution along with my acknowledgment showing service of the same. 5. Copies of Registered Employees Special Byelaw of the Society as on 15-04-2006. required by the petitioner in his representation dt 08-08- 2007 under section 3 of Right to Information Act 2005 as illegal, improper unjust arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to supply the said documents and further direct the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from November 2005 to till today. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMAMOHAN- MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as an Accountant, initially in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS), Vijayapuram Mandal. He was transferred to PACS, Pamur, in the year 1998, and he is said to have joined that society on 24.02.1999. The PACS was merged with the ﬁrst respondent in the year 2005 and it is stated that the petitioner has become the employee of the ﬁrst respondent, on such merger. The petitioner states that he was not permitted to attend the duties of the ﬁrst respondent- society, after the Elected Committee assumed charge. He got issued a notice, dated 15.03.2007, through his advocate, requiring the ﬁrst respondent to state several particulars of the employment of the petitioner. A reply was issued on 31.03.2007, on behalf of the first respondent, stati ng, inter alia, that the Managing Committee of the Society has passed a resolution, dated 15.04.2006, removing the petitioner from service, by paying the salary for one month. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. It is contended that the ﬁrst respondent did not follow the procedure prescribed by law, be it in the matter of conducting the enquiry, or imposing the punishment. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit taking a serious objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner had to work out his remedies either before the authority constituted under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act (for short “the Act”), or by ﬁling a suit. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Amalapuram v. N.Seetha Rama Raju[1]. Heard Sri K.Rammohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. It is not in dispute that the ﬁrst respondent is a Co- operative Society formed under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The challenge in this writ petition is to the action of respondents 1 and 2 in removing the petitioner from service. I n Sri Konaseema Co-op., Central Bank Limited’s case (supra), this Court held that a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available in matters of this nature. The petitioner has to work his remedies before the authority under the Act, or by ﬁling a suit. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the concerned authority and raise all his contentions. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.06.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ [1] AIR 1990 AP 171