ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein is seeking to quash the order dated 21.10.2017 passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru, in Dispute No.JRB/Dava/29(c)/01/2017-18, which is at Annexure-A and also the notice dated 5.4.2017 issued in the aforesaid proceedings, which is at Annexure-B. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 29C of the Karnataka Cooperative Society Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in No.JRB/Dava/29(C)/01/2017-18. The said proceedings has culminated in an order dated 21.10.2017 in disqualifying the petitioner from holding the office of Director for a period five years by invoking Section 29(c)(8)(b)(c) and (d) of the aforesaid Act. The same is impugned in this proceedings, while doing so, the notice dated 5.4.2017 issued in the proceedings is also impugned. 3. This petition is taken up for admission in the presence of learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for sole respondent. The learned Additional Government Advocate would bring to the notice of this Court that the order impugned is appealable under Section 106 of the Act. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the apprehension of the petitioner in the entire proceedings in No.JRB/Dava/29(C)/01/2017-18 is at the instance of people, who are enemically opposed to him. The same is in connivance with the respondent herein to ensure that in the absence of the petitioner and his followers his rivals in the society would take control of the Society by manipulating aforesaid litigation. Therefore, he would submit that the order impugned is required to be interfered in this proceedings. He would further submit that though the order impugned is appealable, the petitioner is before this Court by filing writ petition seeking relief to ensure that he is not removed from the office in dubious manner and same should be discouraged. To substantiate filing of this petition instead of appealing the order impugned he would rely upon the judgment rendered in the matter of M/S.BABURAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHWARI VS. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD NOW ZILA PARISHAD, MUSAFFARNAGAR reported in AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 556.Wherein, it is held that the High Court has inherent power to entertain writ petition in a matter where alternate forum is available to seek redressal. 5. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD NOW ZILA PARISHAD, MUSAFFARNAGAR reported in AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 556.Wherein, it is held that the High Court has inherent power to entertain writ petition in a matter where alternate forum is available to seek redressal. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and as well as the Additional Government Advocate for Respondent. Admittedly petitioner herein and the other Directors of the Aircraft Employees Cooperative Society are before this Court day in and day out consuming precious time in frivolous matters. These litigations are nothing but luxury litigations, which are aimed at usurping control of Cooperative Societies, which are cash cows. The petitioner and other Directors of said Society and other similarly placed in respect of other Cooperative Societies are approaching this Court for all trivial matters which are generally motivated in taking control and management of said Societies. No doubt that the act provides for them to agitate those matters to protect their so called rights. However, that does not mean they should approach this Court in writ jurisdiction, even though they have other alternate avenues available to pursue the same before the authorities either by filing appeal or revision. It is true that this Court has vast powers under Article 226 of the Constitution as observed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment to entertain writ petitions in respect of matters where they could approach authorities by invoking appeal and revision provisions. However, exercise of the same will have to be done judiciously with care and caution under extra ordinary circumstances. It is not that merely because the power is there to be exercised by this Court, the same should be exercised indiscriminately in encouraging luxury litigations motivated by greed. 6. The fact that there are thousands of litigations pending craving the attention of this Court where property rights and personal rights of the parties are involved is not in dispute. When the Courts are finding it difficult to cope up with such heavy burden of litigations of general public with very few judges available to attend, giving special importance to this kind of litigations would be disastrous. When the Courts are finding it difficult to cope up with such heavy burden of litigations of general public with very few judges available to attend, giving special importance to this kind of litigations would be disastrous. Merely because they have ability to engage the services of the best of the Senior Lawyers at the Bar, the Courts should not entertain them in approaching this Court at the drop of their hat by moving memos with the help of Senior Counsel and trying to coerce this Court under the guise of citing judgments of the Apex Court in taking up their matter out of turn and to give them importance keeping more important litigations aside. 7. Therefore, in this background this Court feels that when alternate forum is available to the parties, allowing them to approach this Court out of turn and to coerce this Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not be encouraged. More particularly, when more deserving litigations are pending in queue and in the fact situation where the numbers of Judges being less and chances of more deserving cases not being able to seek the attention of Courts, to entertain writ petitions of this nature where they have right to approach the authorities in alternate forum is available should be discouraged. 8. Incidentally, in the instant case, the order impugned could be challenged under Section 106 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 by filing an appeal as provided under the said Act. When such option is available, this Court feel that there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to approach this Court and also there is no reason for this Court to go out of the way by bending itself backwards to take up these kind of writ petitions out of turn and to encourage the unrighteous litigations which are in pursuit of power and money in the guise of trying to enforce their socalled legal right by filing this writ petition. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the present writ petition cannot be entertained when alternate relief is available in the form of appeal, as stated supra. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. In view of the main petition having been disposed of, I.A.No.1/2017 filed for impleading the proposed respondents does not survive for consideration, hence dismissed.