IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.11022 of 2009 Between: Nagula Narayan Goud & others. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M. Janardhana Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11022 of 2009 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners belong to tappers community. They had been making efforts to become the members of respondent No.4 society. As their efforts did not fructify, they approached respondent No.3 for redressal of their grievance. Respondent No.3 issued proceedings in Rc.No.486/2008, Coopn., dated 16.03.2009, wherein he stated that the petitioners are eligible for membership in respondent No.4 society under Section 19(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) and he directed the President of respondent No.4 society to inform whether the petitioners were ineligible and also to submit a resolution copy within a week. As this direction is not complied with by respondent No.4, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that while petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the residents of Yellapur Village, Khanapur Mandal and members of Yellapur society, petitioner No.3 is a resident of Badankurthy Village, Khanapur Mandal and member of Badankurthy society. It is further stated that as they are already the members of the said societies and not the residents of Nirmal village, their applications were rejected by resolution dated 20.03.2009. At the hearing, Sri M. Janardhana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that though the petitioners were the members of the previous societies, they were expelled from their respective societies in 2008 and 2009 and therefore the reasons assigned by respondent No.4 in the resolution cannot be sustained in law. He further submitted that respondent No.4 has not even served copies of the resolution to the petitioners. In the view I am proposing to take, it is not necessary to delve into the respective submissions of the learned counsel on merits. Under Section 76 of the Act, the petitioners have a remedy of filing an appeal against the resolution passed by respondent No.4 under Section 19 of the Act. In my considered view, it will be more convenient for the Cooperative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) to go into the various disputed aspects and render findings thereon. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to file appeal under Section 76 of the Act before the Tribunal, within a period of one month from today. If such appeal is filed, the Tribunal shall entertain and dispose of the same on merits, without insisting on filing of the certified copies of the resolution. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WVMP.No.1955 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.07.2009 ES