SANJAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioners are the members of respondents No. 4 Society, which is a Co-operative society registered under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). The Society owns certain lands situated at Gumasta Nagar, Indore. The Society had earlier resolved for construction of the Higher Secondary school on an area of about ,90,000 sq. ft. of this land. However, it appears that after election of the new Governing Body in July, 1998 the decision for construction of school was annulled and instead it was resolved that the aforesaid land be given on lease to respondents No. 7 & 8 for construction of hospital. A lease deed is also executed in their favour. The petitioners are aggrieved by this action of the Society and seek quashment of the said lease deed.

(2.) The dispute is obviously between the petitioners members and the respondent No. 4 Society touching the management and business of the Society. Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act provides for resolution of such and dispute by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. In fact, Section 64 makes it mandatory that any such disputes shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the party to the dispute. Section 77, further provides for appeal against the order which may be passed by various officers under the Act. There is provision for second appeal also. It will be thus seen that the Act provides efficacious remedy and a complete code for resolution of a dispute like the one in hand. It was incorrect on the part of the petitioners to avert in their petition the there is no alternative and efficacious remedy except by way of filling petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is now well settled that when a statutory forum or Tribunal is specialty created for redressal of grievance, the High Court should not entertain under Article 226 of the Constitution. The present petition, thus, suffers with the deficiency of non-exhaustion of alternative remedy provided under the law.