THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.875 of 2011 DT.24.01.2011 Between: Sri Radhakrishna Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited … Petitioner And The Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad, Manoranjan Complex, Near Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Kistaiah Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Cooperation The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in registering house plots in favour of members and non-members of the petitioner-Society in respect of lands situated in Survey Nos.125, 126 and 127 of Neredmit Village, Malkajgiri Hamlet, Ranga Reddy District, on the basis of the GPA executed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to initiate inquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Sri T.Kistaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner is an Employees Cooperative Housing Society. It has alleged in the affidavit filed by its President that respondent No.4, who was conducting the affairs of the petitioner-Society, in collusion with respondent No.3, has obtained a GPA in his personal name and allotted the plots to several non-members. The petitioner’s further grievance is that respondent No.1 has not initiated inquiry under Section 51 of the Act. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 has acted whimsically and allotted plots by taking GPA in his personal name, instead of in the name of the petitioner. He has, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is unable to invoke remedy under Section 61 of the Act. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that it has approached respondent No.1 with representations bringing to his notice the alleged irregularities of respondent No.4. If respondent No.4 has acted on behalf of the petitioner-Society, the petitioner is entitled to raise a dispute under Section 61 of the Act. Conversely, if respondent No.4 has acted in his personal capacity, the petitioner is entitled to approach the competent civil Court for invalidation of transfer of land in favour of third parties. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not appropriate for this Court to give any direction to respondent No.1 for resolving the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4, unless such disputes raised by the petitioner fall within statutory provisions of the Act, and the power and jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to adjudicate such disputes. The petitioner is, therefore, relegated to the competent forum depending upon its case against respondent No.4. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.1074 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 24.01.2011 VGB