IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11834 of 2009 Between: Sana Satish Babu S/o. Late Sana Subba Rao R/o. Plot No.126, Road No.74, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Sports and Cultural Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. 3 Andhra Cricket Association, Regd. No.25 of 1953, rep. by its President Flat No.5 and 8, 2nd Floor, Swarna Residency, Annapurna Devi St. Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice dt. 13.6.2009, proposing to convene a meeting on 18-6-2009 at 11.00 a.m. at the office of the Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the bye-laws of the Andhra Cricket Association and consequently set aside the same and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.CH.NAIDU The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11834 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be an elected member of the Executive Committee of the 3rd respondent- Association. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice dated 13-6-2009 issued by the 3rd respondent proposing to convene a meeting on 18.6.2009, as arbitrary and illegal. The only contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the notice dated 13-6-2009 was not in compliance with the bye-laws of the society. It is contended that as per the bye-laws, the notice of the meeting of the Executive Committee shall be given to all its members at least four days before at the last registered address of the members along with the agenda fixed for the same. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent issued a general common notice contrary to the procedure stipulated under the bye-laws that individual notices shall be served on all the members. It is also pleaded that the General Secretary of the respondent- Association by name Vankina Chamundeshwari Nath, who is also a member of the Executive Committee is away from India and he is in England as Manager of the Indian Cricket Team and therefore, the action of the 3rd respondent in convening meeting on 18.6.2009 without notice to him, particularly to consider the allegations leveled against him and to take penal action is arbitrary and illegal. At the out set it is to be noted that the 3rd respondent- Association is a Society governed by the provisions of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and as per Section 23 of the Act, in the event of any dispute arising among the committee or the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, the same has to be resolved by raising a dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or by filing an application in the District Court concerned. Having regard to the said alterative remedy available under the statute, it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, since the notice was admittedly served on the petitioner well within the time prescribed, it can not be said that he was prejudicially affected by the impugned action, which is under challenge in this writ petition. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner from working out appropriate remedies as available under law for redressal of his grievance. No costs. _______________ Justice G. Rohini Dt.17.06.2009 mrb