This writ petition is filed by the LIC Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad represented by its Secretary, seeking a declaration that the order of the Co-operative Tribunal, in I.A. No.393 of 2009 in O.P. No.76 of 2008 dated 28.08.2009, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner society was originally established, under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act in the year 1963 with registration No.TA-203, with the object of providing housing facilities to its members. On 22.06.2007 it converted itself into a Society under the A.P. Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (hereinafter called the "Act"). On the allegation that the 1st respondent herein had committed several acts of malfeasance and misfeasance, in entering into a development agreement dated 30.07.2007, a resolution was passed by the general body of the petitioner society removing him from the office of the Secretary of the Society.

3. The 1st respondent filed O.P. No.76 of 2008 raising a dispute, under Section 37 of the Act, regarding his removal as the Secretary of the petitioner society etc. The petitioner society filed I.A. No.393 of 2009 in O.P. No.76 of 2008 seeking dismissal of the O.P. on the preliminary ground that the petition filed by the 1st respondent, under Section 37 of the Act, was not maintainable as he did not exhaust the remedies, available under the bye-laws of the society, for settlement of disputes. The 1st respondent filed his counter affidavit contending that no committee was constituted, as stipulated in bye-law 35 of the bye-laws of the society, ever since its inception; there was no remedy available under the bye-laws for settlement of disputes; and, as such, the question of exhausting the remedy under the bye-laws, before invoking the jurisdiction of the co-operative tribunal, did not arise.

4. In the order, under challenge in this Writ Petition, the Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 37 (1) of the Act required a member to first exhaust the remedy available under the bye-laws for settlement of disputes; bye-law 35 of the bye-laws of the petitioner-society required the general body to constitute a committee to deal with settlement of disputes; no such committee had been constituted; and accepting the petitioner's contention, that as the 1st respondent had neither submitted a representation nor did he raise a dispute no committee for settlement of disputes was constituted by the Society, would mean that, after a representation was submitted for settlement of disputes, a meeting of the general body of the society would be called for, and the said general body would then constitute a committee to resolve the dispute. The Tribunal observed that, since no committee was constituted and there was no internal mechanism in the Society to resolve the dispute, it could not be said that the 1st respondent had violated either the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the Act or the bye-laws of the Society; as no committee was constituted by the petitioner, to resolve the dispute with him, the 1st respondent had not committed any illegality in filing the O.P directly before the Tribunal; and it could not be said that O.P. No.76 of 2008 was not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 37 of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition.

IS THE DISPUTE IN O.P. 76 OF 2008 AN ELECTION DISPUTE?

5. Sri N. Subba Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the averments in the O.P. showed that there were several civil disputes in relation to the land owned by the Society; the 1st respondent had indulged in various malpractices during the course of his tenure as the Secretary of the Society; the general body was of the view that he was responsible for various irregularities and he was, therefore, removed from the post of Secretary; the contention, that the dispute in the O.P. related to the election of a cooperative society, w