THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31403 of 2010 DT.14.12.2010 Between: B.Chenchu Prasad … Petitioner And The Registrar under Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act-cum- the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Cooperation The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the petitioner’s objection vide its letter, dated 07.12.2010, and preparing the final voters list contrary to bye- law Nos.12.2, 12.3, 13 (a) and 13(b) of the bye-laws of third respondent-Union, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner had been making representations to respondent No.3 about the alleged ineligibility of 15 societies for continuation as members of respondent No.3 on account of non-supply of requisite quantity of milk. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28359 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 16.11.2010, with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. Purporting to consider the said representation, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order, dated 07.12.2010, whereby it has rejected the petitioner’s representation by holding that all the 15 societies are eligible in accordance with bye-law No.11. Respondent No.3 has, however, given liberty to the petitioner to raise objections to the final voters list in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the bye- laws. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the impugned communication has over looked bye-law Nos.12 and 13. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Tribunal under Section 37 of the Act, under which, the Cooperative Tribunal is conferred with the jurisdiction to entertain the disputes touching the constitution, management and business of a cooperative society and the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. This provision is wide enough to vest jurisdiction in the Cooperative Tribunal to entertain the dispute, which is raised in the present writ petition. Ordinarily, when an alternative remedy is available, this Court does not entertain a writ petition filed bypassing such alternative remedy. The petitioner failed to make out any ground to treat this case as an exception to this general rule. For the above-mentioned reasons, while declining to entertain this writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, the petitioner is permitted to avail the remedy under Section 37 of the Act. Subject to the liberty as above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39948 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 14.12.2010 VGB