IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13163 of 2004 Between: R. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Radhakrishna Murthy, R/o Vijayawada, Working as Production Manager, Training cum Production Centre, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P. Vikalangula Coop. Corporation, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Project Officer, Training cum Production Centre, A.P.V.C.C, J.Autonagar, Vijayawada. 3 B.D.V. Prasada Murthy, The Managing Director, A.P. Vikalangula Coop. Corporation, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned order in Proceedings No. 311/Est/A.2/2004-737, dt. 22-7-2004 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the orders passed in W.P.M.P.No.9025/99 in W.P.No.7272/99, dt. 20-4- 99 Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.A.CHAYA DEVI Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. K. Ramanujachari, SC for APVCC. The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Vikalangula Cooperative Corporation in transferring him from Vijayawada to Nalgonda. Similar writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by a common Judgment dated 29-10-2004 in W.P.No.21643 of 2000 and batch. Following the same, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, since the petitioner seeks judicial review of the service conditions, which are in the realm of pure contract made under bye-laws, which have no statutory force or flavour. Further, petitioner has effective and efficacious alternative remedy by way of approaching the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act to work out his remedies. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act for redressal of his grievance, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. November 19, 2004 va To 1 The Managing Director, A.P. Vikalangula Coop. Corporation, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Project Officer, Training cum Production Centre, A.P.V.C.C, J.Autonagar, Vijayawada. 3 Two CD Copies