THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 927 OF 2009 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The unsuccessful writ petitioner is appellant herein. By way this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the correctness of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 13411 of 2009 dated 7.7.2009 dismissing the writ petition filed by him. In the writ petition the petitioner/appellant claiming to be the Secretary of A P Public, Health and Medical Employees Union, Hyderabad sought for writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the correctness of proceedings in Rc.No.6406/E-10.B/2007 dated 1.7.2009 passed by the second respondent herein, wherein he permitted the third respondent herein as elected General Secretary to represent the grievances of the Union subject to outcome of CMA pending before Civil Court . In the impugned order, which has been passed by second respondent herein, who is Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, he takes note of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 10906 and 11774 of 2008 dated 7.8.2008, W.P. No. 26267 of 2008 dated 16.12.2008, W A No. 113 and 654 of 2009 dated 21.4.2009 and proceeds to permit the President Mr.G.Sanjeeva Reddy and General Secretary Mr B Venkateswara Reddy/third respondent herein to represent the grievances of the Union till disposal of C.M.A No. 5 of 2009 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Though, the impugned proceedings dated 1.7.2009 were sought to be assailed on various grounds as contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned single Judge, having regard to the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.113 of 2009 and availability of alternative and efficacious remedy to petitioner/appellant under Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, did not entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same at the admission stage, with liberty to the petitioner/appellant to avail the said alternative remedy. In this appeal, the petitioner/appellant falls back on the self same grounds as raised in the writ petition and further stating that dismissal of the writ petition on the ground availability of alternative remedy, is wholly misconceived. Further, it is stated that having regard to the nature of the order passed by the third respondent, it could only be assailed by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute to the fact that there has been several proceedings at the instance of parties earlier and even now which are pending before the Civil Court and an appeal in C.M.A No.5 of 2009 is stated to be pending, which arise out of an injunction application and orders passed therein. Across the bar, it is stated that the appeal in C.M.A No. 5 of 2009 has been heard and disposed of by III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by judgment dated 6th August, 2009 resulting in dismissal of the appeal and confirming the orders passed by the trial Court in interlocutory applications in I.A.No. 366 and 193 of 2008 in O.S.No. 1593 of 2008 dated 20.11.2008. A copy of judgment dated 6th August, 2009 has been produced before the Court and it is stated that the suit in O.S.No.1593 of 2008 is still pending before the Court of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. During the course of the arguments, there is no serious dispute as to the nature of questions which arise and virtually hover around the correctness of the elections, entitlement of the parties for the posts and offices in the society and therefore necessarily it falls to be well within the mischief of Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. In view of availability of such alternative remedy which is more comprehensive and competent enough to go into all the questions and claims set forth, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner can as well avail the said alternative remedy. More so, in view of the dismissal of the very appeal in C.M.A.No. 5 of 2009 by orders dated 6th August, 2009 and the very writ petition having restricted only till disposal of such an appeal, nothing survives in this appeal, nor can it be said that the questions raised can be gone into by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner/appellant to avail the remedy available under the law and also to prosecute any other proceedings including the civil suit in O.S.No.1593 of 2008 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations or findings arrived at. No costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J DATE: -04-2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 927 OF 2009 PD JUDGMENT FOR PERUSAL OF HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR