ORDER : In both the above writ petitions, the letters issued by the 1st respondent viz., The President, Tamil Nadu Football Association, dated 10.08.2015 and 18.08.2015 respectively, superseding the petitioners-Football Associations, have been challenged by the petitioners. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. 3. As this Court is going to dispose of these writ petitions by way of common order, the brief facts of the case which are culled out from the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions are as follows:- 3-1. The 1st respondent viz., the Tamil Nadu Football Association (in short TFA) is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The petitioners herein viz., Tirunelveli District Footfall Association (petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15015) and Tiruchirapalli District Football Association (petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15369 of 2015) are members of the TFA. The 1st respondent-TFA is a member of All India Football Federation (AIFF) and therefore, it is obliged to respect the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of AIFF, Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and to ensure that these are likewise respected by its members. The main object of the 1st respondent Association (TFA) is to improve the game of football constantly and promote, regulate and control it through out the territory of State in the light of fair play and its unifying educational, cultural and humanitarian values. 3-2. The petitioners are the District Football Associations (in short DFA). If a DFA intends to become a member of the 1st respondent-Association, it shall apply in writing to the 1st respondent-Association. A DFA is required to have minimum of ten clubs on its rolls and conduct regular annual league as per rules for them, besides a tournament for schools in its Revenue Jurisdiction and participate in all the State Championships for Men. Tiruneveli District Football Association is an active member in the TFA and there are 32 clubs as members in the Tiruneveli District Football Association. Similarly, the Tiruchirapalli District Football Association is also an active member in the TFA and there are 46 clubs as members in the Tiruchirapalli District Football Association. 3-3. Tiruneveli District Football Association is an active member in the TFA and there are 32 clubs as members in the Tiruneveli District Football Association. Similarly, the Tiruchirapalli District Football Association is also an active member in the TFA and there are 46 clubs as members in the Tiruchirapalli District Football Association. 3-3. In such circumstances, as regards Tirunelveli DFA, the 1st respondent addressed a communication to them, by his letter dated 10.08.2015, stating that a meeting was held on 09.08.2015 and in the said meeting, the decision of the Executive Committee, after getting report from the Fact Finding Committee, has unilaterally decided to supersede the Tirunelveli DFA with immediate effect. 3-4. So far as Tiruchirapalli DFA is concerned, the 1st respondent-TFA addressed a communication to Tiruchirapalli DFA by letter dated 18.08.2015 stating that the TFA Executive Board, in the interest of the game of football, decided to supersede the Trichy DFA with immediate effect and appoint an Adhoc Committee consisting six persons to take charge of its administration and conduct its activities for a period of two years. 3-5. It is the case of the writ petitioners that in both the writ petitions the first respondent (TFA) has passed an order to supersede the writ petitioners District Foot Ball Associations under the amended unregistered Statute, which was already declared as null and void by the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. In this regard, it is the specific case of the petitioners that one Thangadurai, who is the Secretary of Gnanam Memorial Football Club, which is registered under the Dindigul District Football Association, had filed a suit in O.S.No.5327 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent herein (TFA) or its Association or its authorities or agents or men from in any manner, acting in furtherance of the amended unregistered new statute dated 23.02.2014 till duly registered in consonance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978. On 14.07.2015, the said suit was decreed as prayed for. On 14.07.2015, the said suit was decreed as prayed for. In the light of the said decree, all the activities and affairs, which have been related to the 1st respondent or its authorities or agents or men from the date of enactment of amended unregistered statute of TFA became null and void, including the election that was held on 21.09.2014. By virtue of the nullity of the election, appointment of Office Bearers pursuant to the election also became nullity in the eyes of law. To that effect, on 02.08.2015, the plaintiff in the said suit has sent an intimation to the TFA stating all the above facts and requested the TFA not to act in furtherance to the new amended statute till its registration and any act of the TFA will be viewed as disobeying the judgment and decree passed by the Court. But, inspite of the same, now the orders have been passed under the amended unregistered statute. 3-6. Further, it is the case of Tirunelveli District Football Association that the impugned letter dated 10.08.2015 was signed by one Mr.Jesiah Villavarayar, who has been elected as President of TFA all the way through the election held only on 21.09.2014 at Salem. So, the said Jesiah Villavarayar has no locusstandito act as President of TFA. The President who was acting before the election is having all the rights to lead the TFA and therefore, earlier Office Bearers are the competent persons to do all activities in their concerned posts respectively. 3-7. Further, the impugned letter dated 10.08.2015 signed by Mr.J.Jesiah Villavarayar is only on the basis of two complaints against the Tirunelveli DFA, since October 2015; one is by Mr.Andrew Chandrakumar, former Referee Official of Tirunelveli DFA and another one is by Mr.Selvin, Secretary of Nellai Youth Football Club, which was registered under the Tirunelveli DFA. Both the complainants have no locus standi to prefer a complaint against the Tirunelveli DFA. Mr.Andrew Chandrakumar was suspended by the Tirunelveli DFA prior to preferring a complaint before the TFA against the Tirunelveli DFA and the Nellai Youth Football Club was removed from the roles as per the Constitution by a resolution passed by the Executive Committee of Tiruneveli DFA. Hence, it is the case of the Tirunelveli DFA that the impugned order passed by the TFA is totally illegal and discriminative. 3-8. Hence, it is the case of the Tirunelveli DFA that the impugned order passed by the TFA is totally illegal and discriminative. 3-8. So far as the Tiruchirapalli DFA is concerned, in the impugned letter dated 18.08.2015, it has been stated that the recent affairs and administration of Trichy DFA is in doldrums and no substantial progress is seen for conducting the league matches, Ordinary Congress within the stipulated time as per the TFA/DFA statues presently in vogue. But, it is the case of the Tiruchirapalli DFA that they have been conducting all the matches as per the TFA/DFA statues. They conducted 36 matches in Premier Division League, 36 matches in Super Division League, 36 matches in First Division League, 28 matches in Second Division League and 45 matches in Third Division League; totally, they have conducted 181 matches for the year 2014-2015 as per the statutes and rules of TFA/DFA. On 27.07.2015, the 1st respondent/TFA invited the Tiruchirapalli DFA to participate in the State Level 28th Champion Club Football Tournament for the Universal Rolling Trophy (Men) 2015-2016 at Tuticorin and Kayalpatnam from 7th August to 16th August 2015. The Annual General Body Meeting was proposed to be conducted on 20.09.2015 and all the DFAs have the right to vote in the Congress by sending three persons on behalf of their DFA. A DFA, which is having more than 40 members in their association, can send four persons to the Congress for representing their DFA. So, the Tiruchirapalii DFA is having the voting right by sending four persons to the Congress. To avoid the participation of the Tiruchirapalli DFA, the 1st respondent-TFA has superseded the Tiruchirapalli DFA with a determined plan. 3-9. Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners-Associations. 4. The 1st respondent-TFA has filed counter affidavits, inter alia, contending as follows:- 4-1. The petitioners-Associations are bound by the Constitution of TFA. Article 11 of the Constitution of TFA (under Old Constitution) says that the Association shall sue or be sued in the name of the Hon'ble Secretary and any proceedings in Courts of Law shall be instituted only in the Courts at Chennai where Registered and Administrative Office are situated. Article 11 of the Old Constitution of TFA has been incorporated under Article 1.16 of new Constitution of TFA. Article 11 of the Old Constitution of TFA has been incorporated under Article 1.16 of new Constitution of TFA. Therefore, the territorial jurisdiction vests only in the Courts at Chennai and as such, the present writ petitions filed before this Court is not maintainable. 4-2. Further, Article 37 of the old Constitution of TFA provides for settlement of disputes through Arbitration. Article 37(1) clearly provides as Officials of Association, DFAs, Members, Players and Referees are interdicted from invoking the jurisdiction of Courts of Law in many matters concerning game of Football or its administration or disputes with the DFAs and their constituents and in the case of DFAs not being able to resolve the dispute, they shall agree to submit the same to an Arbitration Tribunal appointed by DFA. Further, Article 66(1) of new Constitution of TFA states that DFAs shall create an option for recourse of Arbitration by nominating a panel of independent arbitrators who may be Advocate or Magistrate to resolve any dispute between TFA, its Members, Clubs, Players, Officials and all those involved in the games of Association. Hence, the Constitution of the TFA provides for Arbitration Tribunal for resolving disputes. 4-3. It is further stated by the 1st respondent-TFA in the counter that one Rajendra Kumar, the Assistant Secretary of Dindigul Football Association, filed a suit in O.S.No.623 of 2013 before the learned XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai; but the said suit was dismissed by the said Court stating that in view of presence of Article 37 in the Constitution of TFA, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the present writ petitions are not maintainable, as alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. 4-4. It is further stated by the 1st respondent-TFA in the counter that the TFA is not administratively, financially and functionally controlled by the Government. Hence, it is not a State or instrumentality of the State as contemplated under Article 12 of Constitution of India. TFA is not discharging any public duty. Therefore, Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked regarding any dispute of TFA. 4-5. Hence, it is not a State or instrumentality of the State as contemplated under Article 12 of Constitution of India. TFA is not discharging any public duty. Therefore, Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked regarding any dispute of TFA. 4-5. Unless amendment of the Constitution of TFA is contrary to the provisions of Societies Act and Rules and when there is no objection by the Registration Authority to the validity of the amended provisions, the activity of Society during the interregnum period of passing the amendment and registration cannot be said to be invalid, merely because of the formality of registration of amendment has not been complied with. 4-6. It is further case of the 1st respondent-TFA that it is true that one Mr.Thangadurai, Secretary of Gnanam Memorial Football Club, which is registered under the Dindigul District Football Association filed a suit in O.S.No. 5327 of 2014 seeking permanent injunction restraining the TFA or its Association or its Authority or Agent or Men from in any manner acting in furtherance of amended unregistered new statute dated 23.02.2014 till duly registered in consonance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 and it is also true that the said suit was decreed exparte on 14.07.2015. But, the TFA has duly filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 14.07.2015. 4-7. The Election of Office-Bearers for TFA held on 21.09.2014 at Salem has not at all been questioned in the manner known to the law. Even in the original suit in O.S.No.5327 of 2014 filed before the learned I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai for permanent injunction, no declaration of relief was asked for to hold that the proceedings are null and void. The other suit in C.S.No.618 of 2014, which has been filed before Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of High Court at Chennai, has challenged the validity of meeting held on 21.09.2014 and the said suit is pending. Till a final decision is made in the said suit, the office bearers now elected are entitled to function and their election cannot be construed as invalid in the eyes of law. 4-8. Various communications were communicated between the 1st respondent-TFA and the petitioners-Associations with regard to the violations committed by the petitioners-Associations. Till a final decision is made in the said suit, the office bearers now elected are entitled to function and their election cannot be construed as invalid in the eyes of law. 4-8. Various communications were communicated between the 1st respondent-TFA and the petitioners-Associations with regard to the violations committed by the petitioners-Associations. The allegation of the petitioners that no show-cause notice was served to the petitioners before the impugned letters were sent is false. In fact, as stated earlier, various communications were exchanged between the parties. Hence, the question of issuing show-cause notice does not arise and there is no violation of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of the petitioners' Associations by the 1st respondent-TFA. 4-9. Further, according to the 1st respondent, the present writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If at all there are disputes in impugned superseding orders, the petitioners have to work out their alternative remedy through arbitration or filing the suit in appropriate Civil Court at Chennai. Thus, the 1st respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Associations, by inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned letters of the 1st respondent/TFA dated 10.08.2015 & 18.08.2015 respectively, submitted that by invoking the statutes of TFA/DFA presently in vogue, the petitioners-Associations were superseded by the TFA. But, the amendment to the current TFA statues was introduced only on 23.02.2014 and the amendment to the current TFA statutes was not registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Under the old statues of the TFA/DFA, there was no Executive Committee. Only under the new amended statues of the TFA/DFA, Executive Committee was formed. Hence, unless and until the amended statue is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent/TFA pursuant to the decision taken by the Executive Committee is not valid under law. 6. Only under the new amended statues of the TFA/DFA, Executive Committee was formed. Hence, unless and until the amended statue is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent/TFA pursuant to the decision taken by the Executive Committee is not valid under law. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by inviting the attention of this Court to the judgment and decree passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in O.S.No.5327 of 2014 dated 14.07.2015, submitted that one Thangadurai had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the TFA or its authorities or agents or men from in any manner acting in furtherance of the amended unregistered new statue dated 23.02.2014 till duly registered in consonance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules 1978 and to declare the acts done by the TFA in the interregnum period pursuant to the newly amended statue as null and void. In the said suit, an exparte degree was granted on 14.07.2015. Therefore, as on date, there is an injunction to enforce the new amended statue of TFA/DFA. Therefore, the contents of the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent/TFA to the effect that the decision was taken in Executive Committee meeting which was formed under the new amended statues of TFA/DFA, would clearly show that the impugned orders have been passed only in total violation to the judgment and decree passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in O.S.No.5327 of 2014 dated 14.07.2015. 7. It is further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned orders are non-speaking orders; on a careful reading of the impugned order it is not clear as to for what reason the impugned orders have been passed superseding the petitioners-Associations. Further more, no enquiry was conducted in this matter before passing the impugned orders. Hence, it is totally in violation to the principles of natural justice. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for quashing of the impugned orders. 8. Further more, no enquiry was conducted in this matter before passing the impugned orders. Hence, it is totally in violation to the principles of natural justice. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for quashing of the impugned orders. 8. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Football Association (TFA) would submit that TFA is a registered Association under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registrarion Act and the petitioners are members of the TFA; hence, the petitioners have to abide by the statues of the TFA. Since the TFA has received complaints against the petitioners-Associations, the fact finding committee was appointed and based on the report of the fact finding committee, the impugned orders were passed by the TFA. The TFA is not administratively, functionally and financially controlled by the State Government or by any Government. Therefore, it cannot be construed as an instrumentality of the State. Further, the dispute is only between the members of the Society; therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. Hence, on that ground the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. Further, the learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA, by inviting the attention of this Court to Article 11 of the old statue of TFA, submitted that if there is any dispute between the members of the TFA, any proceedings in the Court of Law shall be instituted only before the Court at Chennai. Under the new amended statute of TFA, the said clause was incorporated under Article 1.16. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable before this Court on this ground also. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA, by inviting the attention of this Court to Article 66 of the new amended statute of the TFA and Article 37 of the old statues of TFA, submitted that there is a clause for arbitration and therefore, in the event any dispute, the petitioners have to invoke only that arbitration clause. Therefore, on that ground also the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. Therefore, on that ground also the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. Further, the learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 12.3 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, submitted that till the amendment of statute/by-law is registered by the Registrar of Societies, during the interregnum period, if the amended statute / by-law is in consistency with the Societies Registration Act, the said provision in the amended statute / by-law can be invoked. In this regard, the learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA has also relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of The Tamilnadu Evangelical Lutheran Chrch Vs. Daniel Shanmugam & others) reported in 2010(3)LW813. 12. By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005(4) SCC 649 (Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India) submitted that in the case of this nature, though a submission was made for Board of Directors that the Association was not administratively, functionally and financially controlled by the Government, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in that case that a party can always seek the remedy by way of Article 226 of Constitution of India. 13. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgments reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2120 (Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,) and (1998) 8 SCC 11 [Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others], submitted that if there is a failure in following the principles of natural justice, even if there is an alternative remedy, the party can seek his remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 14. But, the learned senior counsel for the TFA by relying upon the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 1 SCC 329 [Gail (India) Ltd., Vs. Gujarat Sate Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.,) submitted that when there is an arbitration clause, a party should be directed to seek remedy only before the Arbitration Tribunal. 15. I have carefully heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 16. Gujarat Sate Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.,) submitted that when there is an arbitration clause, a party should be directed to seek remedy only before the Arbitration Tribunal. 15. I have carefully heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 16. Though very many contentions have been raised on either side with regard to the factual aspects of the case, since the maintainability of the writ petition is question by the learned senior counsel for the TFA, I am of the opinion that at the out set, this Court has to decide the question as to whether the present writ petitions are maintain able or not. 17.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by relying upon the decision reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2120 (Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,) and (1998) 8 SCC 11 [Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others], submitted that in the case of this nature, a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India as against a Society. But, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA that the TFA is not administratively, financially and functionally controlled by any Government; therefore, it cannot be construed as an instrumentality of the Government. I find some force in the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA. In the instant case, it is only a dispute between the members of the Society with regard to certain alleged violations committed by the petitioners-Associations. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, which are totally on different factual aspects, cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case. Further more, I find that there is serious of disputed questions of facts between the petitioners-Associations and TFA. This Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry in the present writ petitions with regard to the disputed questions of facts. Further, under Article 11 of the old statutes of TFA, which has been incorporated under Article 1.16 of new statutes of TFA, in case of any dispute, the jurisdiction is vested only with the Court at Chennai. The said clause is extracted hereunder:_ Proceedings in Courts of Law:-The Association shall sue or be sued in the name of Hon. Secretary. Further, under Article 11 of the old statutes of TFA, which has been incorporated under Article 1.16 of new statutes of TFA, in case of any dispute, the jurisdiction is vested only with the Court at Chennai. The said clause is extracted hereunder:_ Proceedings in Courts of Law:-The Association shall sue or be sued in the name of Hon. Secretary. Any proceedings in a Court of Law shall be instituted only in the Court/s at Chennai where the Registered and Administrative Offices are situated and in no other Court/s. The clause has been incorporated in the amended statutes of TFA as Article 1.16, which reads as follows:- “Proceedings in Courts of Law:-The Association shall sue or be sued in the name of the President. Any proceedings in a Court of Law shall be instituted only in the Courts at Chennai where the Registered and Administrative Offices are situated and in no other Courts in the State.” Further, There is a clause for arbitration under Article 37 of old Statutes of TFA and the same was incorporated as Article 66 in the new Statutes of TFA, which reads as follows:- “Arbitration Tribunal:- 66.1 TFA shall create an option for recourse to Arbitration, by nominating a panel of independent arbitrators who may be advocate or Magistrate to resolve any disputes between TFA, its members, Clubs, players, officials and all those involved in the Game of Association Football. The Arbitration Tribunal will only deal with the internal disputes that do not fall in the jurisdiction of the other two judicial bodies of TFA. 66.2 With regard to substance, the arbitrators shall be guided and apply the various regulations of TFA and AIFF and the Indian Law. 66.3 The Arbitration procedure shall be according to the special regulations made for this purpose.” Therefore, I am of the opinion that when there is an alternative remedy, the petitioners cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, on that ground the writ petition is not maintainable. 18. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that if there is any violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition can be filed, the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA reported in (2014) 1 SCC 329 [Gail (India) Ltd., Vs. Gujarat Sate Petroleum Corpn. 18. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that if there is any violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition can be filed, the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA reported in (2014) 1 SCC 329 [Gail (India) Ltd., Vs. Gujarat Sate Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.,) would clearly show that when there is an efficacious alternative remedy, the High Court should relegate the case to the alternative remedy or arbitration Tribunal. The relevant portion in the said judgment reads as follows:- “28.We also agree with Shri.Nariman that the remedy of arbitration available to the respondent under Para 15.5 of the GSA was an effective alternative remedy and the High Court should not have entertained the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contents of the Gsa, the price side letters and the correspondence exchanged between the appellant and the respondent give a clue of the complex nature of the price fixation mechanism. Therefore, the High Court should have relegated the respondent to the remedy of arbitration and the Arbitration Tribunal could have decided complicated dispute between the parties by availing the services of experts. Unfortunately, the High Court presumed that the negotiations held between the appellant and the respondent were not fair and that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the policy decision taken by the Government of India despite the fact that it had not only challenged that decision but had also shown disinclination to accept the offer made by the appellant to supply gas at the pooled price and had insisted on mutually agreed price.” 19. Above all, the judgment delivered by the Andhra Predesh High Court, which was relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the TFA, in the case of Ambati Ramaiah Etc., Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.Nos.135 of 2011 and etc, dated 09.04.2012) gives a fitting answer to the issue involved in this matter. The relevant portion of the said jdugment is extracted hereunder_ “41.While a flexible and liberal approach bereft of technicalities was advised to be adopted in respect of considering the relief under Article 226 by Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S Trust Vs. V.R.Rudani (1 supra), Zee Teleflims Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2 supra) following Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. The relevant portion of the said jdugment is extracted hereunder_ “41.While a flexible and liberal approach bereft of technicalities was advised to be adopted in respect of considering the relief under Article 226 by Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S Trust Vs. V.R.Rudani (1 supra), Zee Teleflims Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2 supra) following Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (3 supra)concluded the Board of Control for Cricket in India to be not 'State' or 'instrumentality of State' for purpose of Article 12 and so should be the legal status of Andhra Cricket Association. While as already stated, a writ under Article 226 may be available to any aggrieved person, a duty in respect of whom in the light of a positive obligation owned by a person or authority to the affected party is violated in performance of activities akin to public duties or State functions, the majority opinion in Zee Tele films Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2 supra)may not amount to exclude the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only on the ground of the association in question being not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as opined in C.Babu Rao Vs. Ditrict Registrar, Registration of Societies, Hyderabed (12 supra). However, the possible recourse by way of a writ petition under Article 226 apperas to become unavilable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, even if not by rule/regulation 58 of Andhra Cricket Association. Either or both of them appear to make unavailable the remedy of a writ to an aggrieved member. In this regard, it may be noted that W.P.No.21134 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.135 of 2011 and W.P.No.11834 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.12884 of 2011 were admittedly dismissed by this Court as not maintainable probably in view of the availability of alternative remedy and it is not disputed that those judgments have also become final. Under the circumstances, the writ petitions against the Andhra Cricket Association and its Honorary General Secretary can be concluded to be not maintainable in view of rule/regulation 58 of the Association containing an arbitration clause and in any view, because of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001.” The dictum laid down in the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Hence, I am of the considered view that the present the writ petitions are not maintainable, as there is an efficacious alternative remedy which is available to the petitioners. 20. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that the writ petitions are not maintainable, I am not dealing with the other submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides with regard to the other factual aspects. 21. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.