THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22680 of 2010 Date:13.09.2010 Between: N. Macheswara Rao and others. ..... Petitioners AND The Andhra Pradesh High Court Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P. Ravi Shanker Counsel for Respondent No.2: Government Pleader for Cooperation Counsel for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4: --. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the order dated 28.06.2010 in O.P.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). I have heard Sri P. Ravi Shanker, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners claimed to be the ex-Government employees who have worked in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. They have also claimed that they are members of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Employees Association. They averred that respondent No.1 society which was formed and registered in the year 2003 has not considered their claims for allotment of house sites from out of Acs.39.00 cents of land allotted to it by the State Government for distribution among the members of respondent No.1 society. The petitioners, therefore, approached the Tribunal under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995. After hearing all the parties before it, the Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the petition. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the main ground on which the petition was rejected was that the petitioners, being not the members of respondent No.1 society, either in the past or at present, are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 37 of the Act and raise a dispute before the Tribunal. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to substantiate his plea that the petitioners were members of respondent No.1 society at any point of time. As rightly held by the Tribunal, not being either past members or present members of the society or the persons claiming through the members falling in either of these categories, the petitioners do not fall in any of the special clauses of Section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has, therefore, very rightly rejected the petition as not maintainable. On a careful consideration of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the said order, which does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.28932 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th September, 2010 GHN