JUDGMENT : Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally. 2. The case of the petitioners is that:- On 18.08.2016, the petitioners' society received letters from the Managing Director of Goa State Cooperative Milk Producers Union ("Milk Union") calling for names and other details of their Chairman/Representative for preparing the provisional voters list, as well as, the resolutions duly authorizing them to vote and contest the forthcoming elections of the Milk Union. In the letters, it was not mentioned about submitting of any declaration. The letters stated that any documents after 31.08.2016 would not be accepted. On 04.01.2017, an election programme was declared and the date of elections was set for 29.01.2016. Last date for submitting nominations was 12.01.2017. The petitioners filed their nominations before the Returning Officer well in advance. On 13.01.2017, the Returning Officer scrutinised the nomination papers and the objections raised against the petitioners' nomination papers. The petitioners filed reply to the same. By the impugned order, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers filed by the petitioners on the ground that declaration as per bye-law no. 20.1.2 was not filed. Thus, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order and further seeking a declaration that the said Bye Law No. 20.1.2 of the Milk Union as illegal ultra vires and unconstitutional. 3. On hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we are inclined to accept the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that under Section 83 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act (the Act, for short), a statutory remedy is available to the petitioners to challenge the election and all related aspects. Section 83 of the Act reads thus: "83. Dispute.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the election to the Board of Directors or office bearers of society shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, to the Cooperative Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election: Provided that, the Co-operative Tribunal may entertain such dispute after expiry of such period if the party aggrieved satisfies the Co-operative Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within aforesaid period. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, conduct of general meetings, management or business of a society shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated, or by a creditor of the society, as the case may be, to the Registrar, if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following:- (a) a society, it's Board, any past Board, any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or the Liquidator of the society; (b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or a deceased member of a society, or a society which is a member of the society; (c) a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society, or with whom the society has or had transactions and any person claiming through such a person; (d) a surety of a member, past member, or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; (e) any other society, or the Liquidator of such a society. (3) When any question arises whether for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section a matter referred to for decision is a dispute or not, the question shall be considered by the Registrar, whose decision shall be final. (4) Save as otherwise provided under sub-section (3) of section 86, no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1). Explanation 1.- A dispute between the Liquidator of a society and the members of the same society shall not be referred to the Registrar under the provisions of sub-section (1). Explanation 1.- A dispute between the Liquidator of a society and the members of the same society shall not be referred to the Registrar under the provisions of sub-section (1). Explanation 2.- For the purpose of this section, a dispute shall include:- (i) a claim by or against a society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or due from it to a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member or servant or employee whether such a debt or demand be admitted or not; (ii) a claim by a surety for any sum or demand due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan of a society and recovered from the surety owing to the default of the principal borrower, whether such a sum or demand be admitted or not; (iii) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, past member or deceased member, by any officer, past officer or deceased officer, by any agent, past agent or deceased agent, or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant, or by its board of directors, past or present, whether such loss be admitted or not; (iv) a refusal or failure by a member, past member or a nominee, heir or legal representative of deceased member to deliver possession to a society of land or any other asset resumed by it for breach of conditions of the assignment." 4. The Apex Court in Gujrat University vs. N.U. Rajguru, 1987 (Supp.1) SCC 512, has observed as under: "This Court set aside the High Court's order. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the court observed: "It is well-settled law that while Article 226 of the Constitution confers a wide power on the High Court there are equally well-settled limitations which this Court has repeatedly pointed out on the exercise of such power. One of them which is relevant for the present case is that where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the court should keep its hands off. This is more particularly so where the dispute relates to an election. Still more so where there is a statutorily prescribed remedy which almost reads in mandatory terms. One of them which is relevant for the present case is that where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the court should keep its hands off. This is more particularly so where the dispute relates to an election. Still more so where there is a statutorily prescribed remedy which almost reads in mandatory terms. While we need not in this case go to the extent of stating that if there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the court should still refuse to entertain a writ petition it is perfectly clear that merely because the challenge is to a plurality of returns of elections, therefore a writ petition will lie, is a fallacious argument." 5. The challenge even if raised to portion of clause 20.1.2 of the Bye-laws of Union in a limited extent, needs to be considered on its own merits by the Tribunal, in accordance with law. There is force in the submission raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioners' society is not a State, as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The society is governed by the respective Bye-laws framed by the members of the society and all are bound by the same. The Election Officer and/ or Officer concerned are also bound by the same for holding the election within the framework of Rules and Regulations and/or Bye-laws. As provided in Section 12 of the Act, the Tribunal, in a given case, may consider the objection to the respective Bye-laws. Therefore, at this stage, in view of the above, we are granting liberty to the petitioners to make a representation and/ or appropriate application even for correcting the same, if so instructed. 6. This Court on 24.01.2017, has by keeping all objections open and by noting the fact that the challenge is to the whole election process and considering the rejection of nomination of the petitioners for want of declaration in terms of rule 74 of the Goa Co-operative Society Act and Rules, 2003 (20.1.2), as referred above, and taking note even of the preliminary objection, granted interim relief, which is reproduced as under: "5. Keeping all the objections of the respondents open, as it is pointed out by Shri D. Pangam, the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the challenge in the above petition is to the whole election process and manner in which it was conducted by the respondent no. 3, until returnable date, no further action on the basis of the subject notification under Rule 74 shall be taken by the respondents." 7. The interim relief has been in force/continuing till this date by granting extensions on 31.01.2017, 15.02.2017, 23.02.2017 and 28.02.2017. The matter is listed today for final disposal at the admission stage, as already ordered. 8. We have heard accordingly. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, without expressing anything on merits of the issue so raised, we are not entertaining the present writ petition as the petitioners have an alternate remedy available under the concerned Statute. 9. By keeping all points open, liberty is granted to the petitioners to invoke appropriate remedy by filing petition/appeal within one week before the appropriate Tribunal/ Authority. The concerned Tribunal/Authority to decide the same by giving an opportunity to all the concerned, in accordance with law at the earliest and preferably within four weeks. 10. Interim order so granted by this Court, as recorded above, has been in force till this date. Therefore, to avoid complications, we are inclined to continue the same for a period of four weeks, within which time, it is expected that, subject to parties co-operation, the Tribunal/ Authority shall decide the issue in accordance with law. 11. The petition is accordingly disposed of, with liberty so expressed. No costs. Petition Dismissed.