THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16586 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners herein are the members of the 4th respondent/society. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in concluding the election to the 4th respondent/society alleged to have been conducted on 23.07.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Rule 22 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short, “the Rules”) and consequently to direct respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the said alleged election to the 4th respondent/society. It is alleged by the petitioners that the entire election process was contrary to Rule 22 of the Rules and, as a matter of fact, no election whatsoever was conducted on 23.07.2008 and that the members of the society who claim to have got elected as executive members, in collusion with the officers, managed to have conducted the so called election. While pointing out that in the hearing of W.P.No.14656 of 2008 filed by some of the prospective members of the society challenging the action of the society in rejecting their request to accept their membership, though the society was represented through its counsel on 11.07.2008, the election notice dated 7.07.2008 was not brought to the notice of this Court, it is contended by the petitioners that the said fact itself shows that the so-called election held on 23.07.2008 was false. In support of the said allegations, the petitioners wanted to rely upon the certified copies of certain documents obtained by them under the Right to Information Act. At the outset, it is to be noted that all the allegations made by the petitioners relate to the election held to the 4th respondent/society and the challenge to such election on any ground whatsoever shall be by raising a dispute before the Tribunal having jurisdiction as per sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Without exhausting such alternative statutory remedy, the petitioners cannot maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioners to work out the alternative remedy as available under the provisions of the Act. 05.08.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16586 of 2008 Between: 1 Narnepati Afzal hussain S/o Narnepati Akbar Ali 2 Kandukuri Shaik Karimullah S/o K. Shaik Jani 3 Shaik Abdul Rasheed s/o Gujjarlapudi Peda Jani 4 Shaik Kareemullah S/o Parimi Khasim 5 SK. Ahmed S/o Nyloraj Ahmed (All are members of the Lam Labour Contract Labour Society Limited and R/o lam, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of A.P., represented by its District Collector, Guntur district at Guntur. 2 Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Guntur. 3 Sri G. Ashok Kumar, Election officer for the Lam Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., (Retired Bank Manager) Lam, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. 4 The Lam Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., (Reg No. I 1996) Lam, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District, represented by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate Writ, order or direct direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in concluding the election to the 4th respondent society alleged to have been conducted on 23-7-2008 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary Rule 22 of A.P. Cooperative societies Rules, 1964 and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to cancel the said alleged election to the 4th respondent/society as null and void by directing the 1st respondent to forthwith seize the entire records of the 4th respondent Society by appointing person In charge to the said society and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. D.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION Government Pleader for Revenue Mr. B. Chinnapa Reddy (for R4) The Court made the following: