IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 11825 of 2008 Between: 1 Pula Ramakoteshwara Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu, R/o.Cherukupalli Post &(M) Guntur District 2 Yellala Kishore Babu S/o.Narsimha Rao, R/o.Cherukupalli Post &(M) Guntur District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Cherukupalli Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd Rep.by President Cherukupalli Post & Mandal, Guntur District 2 The Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies for Guntur, Guntur 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent dt.01-06-2008 removing the petitioners from the post of Directorship and Membership of Cherukupalli Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd Cherukupalli as illegal, arbitrary and violating the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the bye laws of the society by setting aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Directors of Cherukupalli Milk Products Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd Cherukupalli until the expiry of their term. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11825 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent-society in removing the petitioners as Directors of the said society purportedly under the resolution dated 01-06-2008 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners contended inter alia that as a matter of fact, no such resolution is passed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Having regard to the various disputed questions of fact involved, I am of the opinion that the petitioners ought to have availed the remedy provided under Section 37 of the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) and they cannot be permitted to straightaway invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to work out the alternative statutory remedy by raising a dispute under Section 37 of the Act. If any such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be considered and decided following due process of law expeditiously. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 12-06-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o KLP