( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals are preferred by the respective original writ petitioners against the judgment dated 27th February 1992 of the learned single Judge dismissing their respective writ petitions.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to, what we understand from the Bar, one of the prime co-operative societies in this country having as its members persons who have been, or are, in high places in different walks of life. The society is known as "the Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. , at hyderabad". This. Society was registered sometime in the year 1962 and about 1398 acres of land was alloted to it by the State Government in one of the prime locations in this city.

( 3 ) APART from the earlier elections, the impugned elections to the managing committee of this Society were notified on 10th February 1992. The commencement of the election process set the ball rolling for various disputes between the members of the Society as also between the existing members and the alleged new members thereof. An arbitration case was also filed under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereafter "the said Act") by some of the members; but, before the same could be decided, the present writ petitions were filed. While these petitions were pending, the arbitration case was dismissed holding mat the case did not attract Section 61 of the said Act. Both these petitions (along with a third petition not relevant for the disposal of these two petitions) were heard together by the learned Single Judge who, by his detail judgment and for reasons stated therein dismissed the same. Hence these two appeals.

( 4 ) WE have heard in extenso Counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents in these two appeals and have also gone through the judgment under appeal. It is not necessary to restate the facts and circumstances. The same have been succinctly set out in the judgment under appeal. Suffice it to state that the learned Judge was well justified in dismissing the writ petitions. He has given his own good and sound reasons for doing so. And we find ourselves in agreement therewith. This, indeed, is a case involving several disputed questions of fact. Some of these may be mixed questions of fact and law. The same cannot be satisfactorily or appropriately adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction. Many of the question are such as would necessitate further materials and better particulars. Indeed, even oral evidence cannot be safely ruled out. The learned judge has made his own remarks and observations on different aspects of the disputes and has rightly held that considering the inherent limitations of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution it would not be possible to adjudicate upon the rival claims and contentions.

( 5 ) THE petitioners are, however, not without remedy. The Andhra Pradesh co-operative Societies Act, 1964, provides for effective remedy in disputes such as this. Under Section 61 of the Act, notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society, arises among the classes of the members of the society specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 61, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. On such dispute being referred, the Registrar is empowered under Section 62 of the Act to elect to decide the dispute himself; or transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government with power in that behalf; or refer it for disposal to an arbitrator. Under sub-section (4) of Section 62 power is conferred to make even such interlocutory orders as may be considered necessary pending final decision on the dispute. Position thus is that one aggrieved had, indeed still has, remedy open by wa