IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18867 of 2004 Between: M. Nirmala W/p Prasad Rao H. No. 1-5-63/B, Chaitanyapuri Colony, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar, A.P. Nutuelly Aided Co-op. Societies, Hyderabad, Hyderabad (Urban) District 2 The Meat & Poultry Ex. Employees Mutually Aided Co-op. Society Ltd., 10-2-289/127, Shanthinagar Colony, Hyderabad, rep by Chief Promoter. .....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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Wirt of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 not alllowing to function as a member ofthe society by receiving the amounts due to her on par with other members of the society as per bye-laws is illegal, arbitrary and violation of bye-laws, principles of natural justice and fundemental rights the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal rejection my application by its order dated 5-8-2004 in O.P. Sr. No. 4237/2004 holding that it is not covered under section 37 of the A.P. Mutually Aided Co- operative Societies Act is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Section 37 of the Act and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner perform her duties as a member by paying any amounts due to her onpar with other members Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOONA REDDY ANJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO. 18867 of 2004 ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of A.P. Cooperative Tribunal dated 5.8.2004 rejecting the application of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is said to be a member of the second respondent cooperative society. She is also under the employment of the society and was receiving some salary every month. The grievance of the petitioner is that other members of the society did not allow her to discharge her functions since the year 2000 and she was not paid the amounts towards the wages payable to her. No representation on behalf of second respondent society nor any counter affidavit is filed on its behalf. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and the counsel for the petitioner. The cooperative tribunal did not entertain the application made by the petitioner on the ground that the tribunal cannot entertain the application filed under Section 37 of the A.P. Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act. Section 37 of A.P. Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act reads as under: “37. Settlement of disputes:-(1) If any dispute arises touching the constitution, management or business of a Co-operative Society, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto:- (a) among members, past members or persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the Cooperative Society, its Board, Director, office-bearer or liquidator, past or present; or (c) between the Co-operative Society or its Board and any past Board, Director, office bearer, or the Nominee, Heirs, or Legal Representatives of any deceased Director, deceased Officer, of the Co-operative Society; or (d) between the Co-operative Society and any other Co-operative Society; or (e) between the promoters of a Co-operative Society and the Registrar; or a Co-operative Society and the Registrar; or (f) between a Co-operative Society and liquidator of another Co-operative Society, or between the liquidators of two or more Co-operative Societies; such disputes may be referred to the Co-operative Tribunal for decision; Provided that no dispute shall be referred under this section to the Co-operative Tribunal unless the disputing parties exhausted all remedies that may be available in the bye-laws for the settlement of disputes. (2) Any dispute relating to elections held to a Co-operative Society may be referred to the Co- operative Tribunal for decision.” From the reading of Section 17 of the said Act, I am of the view that the Tribunal can entertain the dispute between the parties and there is no bar of jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act since the section is a comprehensive section covering all the disputes relating to cooperatives societies. The Tribunal is the proper forum to adjudicate upon the matter. In the light of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of the Cooperative Tribunal dated 5.8.2004 passed in O.P.SR.No.4237 of 2004 is set aside and the tribunal is directed to restore the said O.P. to its original number and after giving opportunity to both the parties and after considering the material placed by both the parties, pass appropriate orders according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU.J 26th FEBRUARY, 2008 Tsr. To 1 The Registrar, A.P. Nutuelly Aided Co-op. Societies, Hyderabad, Hyderabad (Urban) District 2 The Chief Promoter, Meat & Poultry Ex. Employees Mutually Aided Co-op. Society Ltd., 10- 2-289/127, Shanthinagar, Colony, Hyderabad, rep by.. 3. Two C.C.s to G.P. for Co-operation, High Court buildings, (OUT) 4. Two C.D. copies.