IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12431 of 2008 Between: B. Dwarakanath Reddy S/o. B. Rami Reddy Society, Madanapalle, R/o. 14-7, C.T.M. Road, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. 2.The Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 3.President, Horsley Hills Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Horsely Hills, No. M 1094 Kotavooru Village, B.Kothakota Mandal, Chittoor District. 4.Horsley Hills Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., Rep. by its President, Kotavooru Village, B.Kothakota Mandal, Chittoor District. .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in removing the petitioner as a member of the 4th Respondent Society by an order dt. 2-6-2008 is illegal, arbitrary unjust and violation of the procedure contemplated under the Section 30 of the Act, and further violation of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and Rules and set aside the order of the 3rd Respondent dt. 2-6-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.12431 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the third respondent in removing the petitioner as a Member of the fourth respondent-Society by order, dated 02.06.2008, is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 30 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent is a society registered under the provisions of the Act. Since admittedly the petitioner is assailing the action of the society and the issue involved relates to the entitlement of the petitioner to continue as a member of the said society, it is nothing but a dispute between a Member and the Society which requires settlement under Section 61 of the Act. Without exhausting such an alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court 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 petitioner to work out the alternative remedy available under the statute. No costs. _______________ 17.06.2008 VGB