HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 438 of 2009 (M/S) Sita Devi ….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …. Respondents And Writ Petition No. 439 of 2009 (M/S) Nakli Ram ….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …. Respondents Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 25th June, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Since the subject matter of both the writ petition is same, the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The grievance of the petitioners is against the recovery initiated against them by the Cane Cooperative Development Societies Ltd. The learned counsels for the respondents state that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners under Section 70 of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (from hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to approach the Registrar. Section 70 of the Act reads as follows : “70. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises – (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or any person claiming through a member, past member or deceased members, and the society, its Committee of Management or any officer, agent or employee of the society, including any past officer, agent or employee; or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased office, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or (d) between a co-operative society and any other co-operative society or societies : such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any such dispute : Provided that a dispute relating to an election under the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall not be referred to the Registrar until after the declaration of the result of such election. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be included in dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely – (a) claims for amounts due when a demand for payment is made and is either refused or not complied with whether such claims are admitted or not by the opposite party; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any bebt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor or whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) a claim by a society for any loss cause to it by a member, officer, agent or employee including past or deceased member, officer, agent, or employee, whether individually or collectively and whether such loss be admitted or not; and (d) all matters relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the bye-laws as also those relating to the election of office-bearers. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon o the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.”” On the submission made above, both the writ petition are being dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. C.K. Sharma prays that he will approach the Registrar of the Society, however, till the pendency of the matter before the Registrar, the recovery proceedings be stayed. It is not appropriate for this Court to pass such orders since the matter has already been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, it is open to the petitioners to make such request before the concerned authority. It is directed that in case the petitioners approach the Registrar, the matter shall be decided as expeditiously as possible without any further delay. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.6.2009 Avneet