THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE, DATED 05.03.2026, VIDE ITS REFERENCE NO. NKGSB/REC-SSW/109-3036-1/127/2025-26, ISSUED UNDER RULE 37 OF THE MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2002, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

[ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Society. Perused the material on record.

2. The short point that arises for consideration before this Court is, whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to assail an arbitral award passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, ‘Act, 2002’), when the statute itself provides a specific and efficacious alternative remedy.

3. On a pointed query by this Court with regard to maintainability, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to contend that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in an identical set of facts, has entertained a writ petition and granted relief against an arbitral award passed under Section 84 of the Act, 2002. This submission, though noted, does not persuade this Court to deviate from the well-settled principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when the statutory scheme explicitly provides a remedy.

4. A careful examination of Section 84(5) of the Act, 2002, makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are made applicable to all arbitrations conducted under the Act, 2002. The legislative intent is manifest ,arbitral awards rendered under Section 84 are to be subjected to challenge only in the manner contemplated under the Arbitration regime. Consequently, an aggrieved party is required to invoke the remedy under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by filing an application for setting aside the arbitral award before the competent Court.

5. It is trite that when a statute provides for a complete machinery to ventilate grievances, including a forum for redressal, the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, would ordinarily refrain from entertaining such petitions. The rule of alternative remedy is not a mere rule of convenience, but a rule of discipline and self- imposed restraint. In the case on hand, the Act, 2002, read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, constitutes a complete code insofar as adjudication and challenge to arbitral awards are concerned.

6. In the present case, the petitioner, instead of availing the statutory remedy under Section 34(1), has directly approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction. Such a course is impermissible, particularly when no exceptional circumstances are made out warranting interference under Article 226. The reliance placed on an order passed by a Coordinate Bench, without demonstrating parity of facts or the ratio laid down therein, cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory remedy.

7. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

8. It is further directed that the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the present writ petition shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation, provided the petitioner files the application under Section 34(1) within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of