THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.395 of 2011 Dated 06th April, 2011 Between: Kagitha Venkataramana Rao and others …Petitioners And The Deputy Director, Fisheries Department, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri J.M.Naidu Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP for Fisheries The Court made the following: 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. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings No.2026/C/2010, dated 22.11.2010, of respondent No.1, and notice, dated 08.12.2010, of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries representing respondent No.1. Petitioner No.2 was elected as President of Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, Godavarru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District (for short ‘the Society’) on 30.05.2006. Petitioner Nos.1 and 3, and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were elected as Directors of the Society. The term of the elected Managing Committee is due to expire on 29.05.2011. There appeared to be internal squabbles between the petitioners on the one side and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other. The petitioners alleged that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have fraudulently obtained the signature of petitioner No.1 and made use of the same for submitting a purported resignation letter before respondent No.1 and on the basis of such resignation letter, respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings, dated 22.11.2010, declaring that in view of resignation of the majority of the Members, the Managing Committee ceases to exist under Rule 23-AAA of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 and thereby he has appointed respondent No.2 as Person-in-charge to manage the affairs of the Society. The petitioners specifically pleaded that petitioner No.1, being an illiterate, fraud was played on him by respondent Nos.3 and 4 by obtaining his signatures and misusing the same for the purpose of presenting the resignation letter. In my opinion, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the disputed questions of fact. Under Section 61 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a society, other than a dispute regarding the disciplinary action, can be decided either by the Registrar or by reference to the an arbitrator under Section 62 of the Act. Therefore, in my opinion, this is an eminently fit case where the petitioners can raise such a dispute before the Registrar concerned. Accordingly, without adjudicating the case on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the above- mentioned remedy. If such dispute is raised, respondent No.1 shall ensure that the same is resolved as expeditiously as possible, as the original term of the Managing Committee is coming to an end in a short time. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.493 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th April, 2011 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB