IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8936 of 2008 Between: 1 Gudaboina Venkata Krishna S/o.Varadaiah Member in Fishermen Cooperative Society Resident of Narasingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. 2 Gudaboina Buchaiah S/o.Sheshaiah Member in Fishermen Cooperative Society Resident of Narasingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. 3 Ambati Muthyalu S/o.Shivaiah Member in Fishermen Cooperative Society Resident of Narasingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. 4 Bommaraboina Anjaiah S/o.Kashaiah Member in Fishermen Cooperative Society Resident of Narasingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. 5 Bommaraboina Muthyalu S/o.Eshwaraiah Member in Fishermen Cooperative Society Resident of Narasingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. 6 Gundu Lingaiah S/o.Narsaiah Member in Fishermen Cooperative Society Resident of Narasingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Nalgonda. 3 The Fisheries Development Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Dsitrict. 4 Gunda Sattaiah S/o.Kashaiah R/o.Narasingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. 5 President Fishermen Cooperative Society, R/o.Narasingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. .....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 a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law, consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide letter No. 1448/B/2007 dated 2.4.2008 against the petitioners directing removal of their names from primary membership of the Fishermen Co-operative Society, Narsingbatla Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.L.NAYAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the Proceedings dated 2.4.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent ordering removal of the petitioners’ names from primary membership of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Narsingbatla village, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners assert that they are the members of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Narasingbatla village, Nalgonda District. While so, the former President, Gundu Sataiah, in collusion with Fisheries officers, gave a false complaint to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Director of Fisheries against the petitioners for removal of their names from the primary membership of the Society. Based on the complaint, the 2nd respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15.3.2008 recognizing their membership as a disqualification, and the petitioners gave a reply to the Show Cause Notice on 31.3.2008. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that the 2nd respondent, without conducting proper enquiry, issued the impugned proceedings ordering removal of their names from the primary membership of the Society treating them as disqualified members. Head the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Against the proceedings issued for disqualification of membership in the Fishermen Cooperative Society, an appeal lies under Section 76 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1996 (for brevity “the Act”) before the appellate authority. Inasmuch the petitioners have filed this writ petition without exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy of preferring the appeal as contemplated under the relevant provision of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to question the impugned proceedings before the appellate authority. No costs. ________________ 30.04.2008 bcj