K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are preferred against the order dated 28th February, 24th March, 1992 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. Nos. 20421 and 20422 of 1991. The writ petitions were filed by the Sugarcane Growers Association, Kapalapur (A), Taluk and District bidar, represented by its President and another person by name Channtah, purporting to be public tnterest litigation. ( 2 ) THE petitioners sought for the following reliefs :" (I) a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners in respect of the standing non-purchased and non-Jifted sugarcane crops for the agricultural season of the year 1990-91 and also loses in respect of future. crops of agricultural season 1991-92 ; (2) a writ or order directing the respondents to appoint one of the senior level agricultural officer belongs to Agriculture Department of the State of Karnataka to assess the compensation to be paid to the petitioners on the basis of plantation particulars recorded by the respondents in respect of agricultural season for the (academic) year 1990-91 and also direct the respondents to adopt and apply the same principles for fixing the compensation for the losses of future crops for the agricultural academic year 1991-92 at the prevailing rates ; (3) any other order or direction as defined fit by this Hon'ble court in the circumstances of the case, in the interest to justice and equity. "the sugar factory resisted the writ petitions and put forth several contentions. One of the contentions was that the relief sought for could not be granted because it involved determination of several facts, and Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides a specific forum for determination of the disputes between a Co-operative society and its members touching the constitution, management or business of a co-operative society. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are the members of the sugar factory which is a co-operative society ; that they had grown sugarcane within the area reserved for the sugar factory ; that though sugarcane was raised by the members, the sugar factory failed to lift the same for the yeas 1989-90 and 1990-91 and as a result thereof, the petitioners were put to great loss and as such the sugar factory was liable to compensate them. Thus thy prayed for compensation for the loss alleged to have been caused to them on account of failure on the part of the sugar factory to lift the sugarcane grown in the area reserved for the sugar factory. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge has accepted the contention of the sugar factory that it is open to the petitioners to seek relief under Section 70 of the Act. However, the learned Single Judge has stated that the objection in that regard is technical. Accordingly, the following directions have been issued by the learned single Judge :"hence these writ petitions are allowed directing the respondent No. 2 to appoint an officer of the co-operative department of the grade of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies as the commissioner to determine the quantum of sugarcane that was not lifted from the members of the Association for crushing for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and fix the loss and submit a report both to the Government and to the sugar factory to take appropriate action. Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint a Commissioner within one month from this date. The Commissioner so appointed shall hold an enquiry after inviting both the parties and other persons interested personally or by receiving affidavits or representations from the parties and submit bis report to respondent No. 1 within two months from the date of his appointment and on receipt of such report the Government to pass appropriate orders within a fortnight. The Commissioner so appointed shall hold an enquiry after inviting both the parties and other persons interested personally or by receiving affidavits or representations from the parties and submit bis report to respondent No. 1 within two months from the date of his appointment and on receipt of such report the Government to pass appropriate orders within a fortnight. " ( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners who are the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, that pursuant to the directions issued by the learned single Judge, the report has already been made ready by the Commissioner appointed by the State Government and he has also submitted the report to the State Government and therefore the direction having been obeyed, the writ appeals need not be considered on merits. It is also submitted that the writ petitions were filed as public interest litigation because several members of the sugar factory were put to loss because of the failure on the part of the sugar factory to lift the sugarcane ; that as justice has been done, the order passed by the learned single Judge need not be interfered with. ( 6 ) IT is relevant to notice that whenever a dispute arises between a co-operative society and its members touching the consideration, management of the business of a co-operative society, it is open to them to have such a dispute decided in accordance with Sections 70 and 71 of the Act. Section 118 of the Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts to go into the dispute required under Section 70 to be referred to the registrar or the recovery of moneys under Section 100. It also covers other types of claims. But it is not necessary for us to refer to other provisions contained in Section 118 of the Act. Suffice it to say that the dispute of the nature in question, is covered by Section 70 of the Act and as such the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts in this regard is excluded. We shall not be understood to have held that because the civil and revenue courts have no jurisdiction, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot exercise jurisdiction Bar of jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts does not come in the way of the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We shall not be understood to have held that because the civil and revenue courts have no jurisdiction, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot exercise jurisdiction Bar of jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts does not come in the way of the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But that does not mean that in cases where efficacious alternative remedy is available and where several facts are to be established ignoring the said remedy, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Here is a case where the sugarcane growers are required to establish several facts that are disputed by the sugar factory. The determination of damages requires determination of several facts: It is not a pure question of law. Further the award passed by the arbitrator is appealable. Appeal lies both on facts and law. Thereafter the remedy by way of a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is available to the aggrieved party. Therefore, we are of the view that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in a case like this is not warranted, ( 7 ) ALTERNATIVELY it is submitted by Sri Vijayashankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners who are respondents in these appeals that as the report is made ready by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies pursuant to the directions issued in the writ petitions and it has been submitted to the State Government, the same may be permitted to be used in the dispute to be raised before the arbitrator as per the provisions contained in Section 70 of the Act. ( 8 ) WE do not propose to express our opinion on this submission because it is open to the parties to examine the officer who prepared the report as a witness if it becomes necessary. Therefore, we express no opinion in this regard. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned single Judge dated 28. 2. 1992/14. 3. 1992 passed in Writ petitions Nos. 20421 and 20422 of 1991 is set aside. Therefore, we express no opinion in this regard. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ appeals are allowed. The order of the learned single Judge dated 28. 2. 1992/14. 3. 1992 passed in Writ petitions Nos. 20421 and 20422 of 1991 is set aside. Liberty is however reserved to such of the members of the petitioner association who raised sugarcane in the area reserved for the sugar factory in question during the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and the sugar factory failed to lift the same, to raise appropriate dispute under Section 70 of the Act seeking appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. Sri N. K. Gupta, learned Government Advocate, is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents 3 to 5 within six weeks. Writ appeals allowed. --- *** --- .