ARUMUGHAN N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition, aggrieved by the action of the 3 rd respondent Society in removing them from the membership of the Society on the ground that the petitioners acted against the interests of the Society and bye-laws. While the writ petition was preferred against the said decision taken by the 3rd respondent Society, the 3rd respondent has, through its counter affidavit, pointed out that the petitioners had already approached the 2nd respondent against the notices issued to them, and the consequential action taken against them, by invoking the provisions of Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules']. It is pointed out by the 3rd respondent, therefore, that since the petitioners have already availed of an alternate remedy before the 2 nd respondent, their action in simultaneously invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was wholly inappropriate.

(2.) I have heard Sri.K.T.Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.P.Harish, the learned senior Government Pleader for the official respondents of the State as also Sri.N.Raghuraj, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 that the writ petition, challenging the decision of the 3 rd respondent Society is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as the petitioners have already approached the 2nd respondent through an application under Rule 176 of the Rules. I am therefore of the view that the writ petition cannot be maintained by the petitioners, who have already chosen another Forum for redressal of their grievance.