THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30089 of 2010 Date:25.01.2011 Between: Rachakatla Murali and others ..... Petitioners AND The Commissioner of Fisheries, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. M. Vidyavathi Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Cooperation Counsel for Respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioners as members of respondent No.4 society as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and the bye-laws made thereunder and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Ms. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. There is no representation for respondent No.4. The petitioners, who belong to fishermen community, claimed to be the residents of Mahadevapur Village and members of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Manthini. On the applications made by them for constitution of a separate society for Mahadevapur Village, a skill test was held, in which 39 persons among the petitioners were found eligible. By proceedings dated 05.12.2008, respondent No.3, however, permitted formation of a new society by certain persons belonging to Mudiraj community. In the said proceedings, he directed adhoc committee to enroll 39 members belonging to Gangaputra community (the petitioners claimed to be the persons refused in the said proceedings by respondent No.3) as members of respondent No.4 society. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said direction, they are not enrolled as members of the society. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that the society has total number of 125 members, who solely depend on fishing, that according to the circular, an extent of Acs.2½ of land should be made available for each member for carrying on fishing operations and that keeping in view the total extent, it is not feasible to admit the petitioners as members. It is further stated that the petitioners suppressed that they are already members of Manthini fishermen cooperative society, that by general body resolution dated 20.03.2009, respondent No.4 refused to admit the petitioners in its society and copies of the said resolution were sent to them and respondent No.3 by registered post with acknowledgement due and that the petitioners have not questioned the said resolution by filing an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal. On this premise, respondent No.4 stated that the petitioners are not entitled to issuance of any mandamus. Section 19 of the Act provides for eligibility and admission of the members into cooperative societies. Sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Act envisages that the managing committee of a society shall not without sufficient cause, refuse admission to membership to any person duly qualified therefor under the provisions of the Act and its bye-laws. It further provides that where admission is refused, the decision, with reasons therefor, shall be communicated by registered post to such persons within fifteen days of the date of the decision, or within sixty days from the date of his application for membership, whichever is earlier. Under Section 75 of the Act, Cooperative Tribunals are constituted for such areas as may be specified in the notification. Under Section 76 of the Act, any person or society aggrieved by any decision passed or order made under Section 19 of the Act may appeal to the Tribunal. Undisputedly, the resolution passed by respondent No.4 rejecting the petitioners’ application for admission into the society is amenable to appeal under Section 76 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that this Court can entertain the writ petition even ignoring the statutory remedy of appeal envisaged under Section 76 of the Act. I am afraid, this contention cannot be accepted because ordinarily, this Court does not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, where the aggrieved party has an efficacious alternative remedy. The Cooperative Tribunal is headed by the Chairman, who is of the rank of a District Judge, a judicially trained person. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal provided under Section 76 of the Act is not efficacious. Moreover, the petitioners have failed to question the resolution passed by respondent No.4 society in this writ petition. So long as the said resolution is not questioned, no relief in this writ petition can be granted to the petitioners. Therefore, on both these grounds, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any relief in this writ petition. However, they are entitled to question the resolution passed by respondent No.4 rejecting their applications for admission into the society, if they feel aggrieved thereby, in accordance with Section 76 of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.38310 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th January, 2011 GHN