HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37813 of 2014 Date:09.12.2014 Between:
Shaik Mahabuh Subhani, S/o Johnny and 54 others.
. Petitioners And:
The State of A.P., reptd by Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur District and four others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Co- Operation (AP) Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Sri Bobba Vijayalakshmi The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.GNT/08/02/1183, dated 17.10.2014, of respondent No.5, whereby he has informed the petitioners through separate, but, identical orders that as per the General Body resolution, dated 04.10.2014, they are expelled from the membership of respondent No.4-society.
At the hearing, Sri B.Chinnappa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not disputed that the impugned orders are traceable to Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and that the petitioners have a remedy of appeal under Section 76 of the Act. He has, however, made a vain bid to convince this Court to entertain the Writ Petition, despite the availability of alternative remedy, for the reason that the impugned orders have deprived the petitioners of their livelihood and thereby, the provisions of Article-19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India are violated.
In my opinion, this argument has no merit at all. The Constitutional Courts have imposed upon themselves self-restraint in entertaining the Writ Petitions where effective alternative remedies are available to the aggrieved persons. The Courts have carved out broadly two exceptions to the general rule, viz., whether the order was passed by an authority which inherently lacks jurisdiction or the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Merely because an order, which is perceived as illegal by the aggrieved party, has the effect of deprivation of his livelihood, the same cannot constitute a ground for this Court to entertain the Writ Petition when an effective alternative remedy is available.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that the above-noted two grounds of exception do not exist in the present case. Therefore, the petitioners failed to make out a case for entertainment of the Writ Petition for adjudication on merits.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal.
As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.47301 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
JUSTICE
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
09th December 2014 DR