wp8536.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8536 OF 2009. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3705 OF 2010. Proposed Shriram Samarth Mascha Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Peer Kalyan, Taluka and Dist. Jalna, through its Chief Promoter. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri P.P. More, AGP for R.Nos.1 to 3. Shri N.R. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18th April, 2011. PER COURT: 1. The present petition has been filed by the proposed Co-operative Society contending that because of the amendment being granted to the Bye-laws of the respondent No.4 society, its right would be affected. Reliance is placed by wp8536.09 2 the learned Advocate for the petitioner on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of A-One Cement Concrete Works Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune, reported in 1998(3) ALL MR 193 to contend that no hearing was given to the petitioner before the amendment was allowed. The learned Advocate also relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivram s/o Sonbaji Girhipunje and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 602 wherein the Division Bench has observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court does not cease merely because there is an alternate remedy available in law. 2. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. submits that the rights of the petitioner would not be affected only because of the amendment to the bye-laws of the respondent no.4 society. This averment has been made in the affidavit filed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Jalna. wp8536.09 3 3. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 submits that the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner should have filed a statutory appeal, which is available u/s 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. He further points out that the writ petition preferred by an unregistered society is not maintainable. He relied on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Mathura Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v/s Official Liquidator & another, reported in 2003(5) Bom.C.R. 481 and the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in case of T.N. Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madras vs. Secretary to Govt. of T.N., Rural Development and Local Administration Dept., Madras and others, reported in AIR 1989 MADRAS 224. 4. In our opinion, the writ petition need not be entertained. A statutory remedy is available wp8536.09 4 to the petitioner to challenge the amendment to the bye-laws of Respondent No.4. Merely because the petitioner was not heard, it does not mean that the petitioner's writ petition must be entertained. The decision of the learned Single Judge in A-One Cement Concrete's case was in a situation where there was no statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, at that point of time, against an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune u/s 7A of the said Act. It is in these circumstances that the Court, while entertaining the writ petition, observed that the principles of natural justice would be violated if the order was passed without hearing the affected party. 5. It is true that the writ jurisdiction of this Court would not cease to exist merely because there is an alternate remedy available to the affected party. However, it is within the discretion of this Court to decide whether it should exercise its extraordinary writ wp8536.09 5 jurisdiction when an alternate remedy is available to the affected party. 6. In our opinion, in view of the fact that the State has averred that more than one society can be registered in respect of the said Tank, there is no need to entertain the present petition. The petitioner has an alternate remedy, which should be exhausted. The Petition is rejected. 7. There is no need to continue the interim relief which was granted earlier, as requested by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Civil Application dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J] ... Kadam/*