C. Ram Mohan v. The Government of A.P

Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri L. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the 6th respondent and Sri K. Santhosh, learned counsel representing Sri G. Arun, learned counsel for the 10th respondent. The writ petition is to declare the notices dated 07-04-2009 and 15-04-2009 issued by respondents 4 to 9 as illegal, which notices were for the holding of the Annual General Body Meeting for conduct of elections for three outgoing members of the society on 09-05-2009 and for various consequential reliefs. While the 3rd respondent is admittedly a society governed by the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 as on the date of issuance of the impugned notices, it cannot be in dispute that the subject matter of the writ petition being a dispute arising among the members of the society in respect of a matter relating to the affairs of the society, the matter needs to be proceeded with under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or through an appropriate application before the District Court concerned, which shall have to pass an order as it deems fit after a necessary enquiry.

The remedy devised by Section 23 of the State Act, which repealed the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli under which the 3rd respondent was originally registered was held by a learned Judge of this Court in Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Educational Society, represented by its General Secretary-cum- Correspondent v. District Registrar of Societies, Nellore and [1] others to be part of the self-contained Code enacted by the Legislation in which Section 23 mandates any disputes covered by it to be resolved by filing a petition in the District Court within whose jurisdiction the society operates. The learned Judge deprecated usurp action of the powers of a Civil Court conferred under Section 23 of the Act by any other authority. As such efficacious alternative remedy has to be taken recourse to by the petitioner instead of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition has to fail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions.