JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner No.1 is Milk Producers Co-operative Society at Neraluru which supplies milk to respondent No.2 Bengaluru Co-operative Milk Union Ltd., (hereinafter for brevity referred to as BAMUL), after procuring the same from its producers i.e., farmers. For the milk supplied, the petitioner submits bills for their honour to the 2nd respondent- BAMUL, who as per the Bye-laws of the establishment, considers the bills and releases the payment. According to the petitioner- Society, two months bill i.e., for the months of April and May 2020, have not been honoured by the 2nd respondent, which in turn, has issued a notice as per Annexure-A dated 27.1.2020. In the said Annexure, the 2nd respondent has made certain allegations as the defects are said to have been found in the management of the petitioner-Society. Those alleged defects includes, procuring the milk without properly assessing its fat content, not paying the rationalised fare to the producers of the milk, not acquiring a suitable building for its operations, not maintaining proper registers and documents of the Society. Subsequent to the same, it appears that a final notice has also been issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-C dated 23.3.2020 stating that in view of the non-furnishing of the documents called for by it from the petitioner-Society, the milk supply bills of the petitioner-Society have been temporarily withheld. It is the said Annexure-A and Annexure-C, the petitioner has challenged in this writ petition. 2. The matter is taken up through Video Conference. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1 have participated. Learned counsel Sri B.L. Sanjeev is appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, who submits that he has filed vakalat for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the Registry, as such, the said learned counsel is also permitted to appear and make his submission for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing, however, with the consent from both side, the petition is taken up for its final disposal. 4. 3. Though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing, however, with the consent from both side, the petition is taken up for its final disposal. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners while drawing the attention of this Court to Section 64 and 65 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as KCS Act), submitted that the 2nd respondent-BAMUL if at all is not happy with the management of the petitioner-Society and has got any complaint against it, then it has to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies who alone can hold an enquiry under Sections 64 and 65 of the KCS Act. 5. Learned Addl.Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 though supported the submission that the dispute between the Society and its members or between two Societies has to be decided by the competent authority under Section 70 of the KCS Act, she fairly submitted that regarding the payment of bills raised, it is for respondent No.2 to make submission and respondent No.1 State cannot make any submission at this stage in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 while reiterating the contents of Annexures-A and C in his argument, further submits that the petitioner- Society even after enjoying all the facilities provided to it by the respondent No.2 in the form of subsidy, free medical facility to the cattles and other facilities, still has not adhered to the Bye-laws of the 2nd respondent, and subject to which, the petitioner is supplying the milk to the 2nd respondent. It is in the best interest of the producers of the milk, the 2nd respondent has issued Annexure-A and subsequently Annexure-C. Further, the learned counsel fairly submits that Section 70 of the KCS Act provides for a mechanism for resolution of the dispute between the Society and its members. 7. During the course of the argument, it is also brought to the notice of the Court that Annexure-A calls for the audited reports of the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018- 19, apart from other registers, including purchase and supply of the milk, Cash Book etc., According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Society, those Cash registers and other registers need not be supplied to the 2nd respondent at its call by the petitioner- Society, unless a direction is given to that effect by the competent authority in a dispute pending before it. However, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that if the 2nd respondent is particular about the audited reports of the petitioners Society for the said years i.e., 2016-17 to 2018-19, the petitioner- Society is ready to furnish one more copy of the same to the 3rd respondent, however, the pending bills of the petitioner-Society for the month of April and May 2020 has to be dealt with and paid in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above submission, I am of the view that the main grievance of the petitioners is about the pendency of the bills submitted by it to the 2nd respondent, which according to the petitioner-Society, has caused serious prejudice to its activities, more importantly, the Society has now become unable to make further payment to the producers of the milk due to paucity of fund since its bills have been withheld by the 2nd respondent-Society. 9. Admittedly, any dispute between a Co-operative Society and its members regarding the functioning of the Society has to be dealt with by the competent authority under Section 70 of the KCS Act. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that by giving a direction to the petitioner-Society to furnish the copies of the audited reports of the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 to the 2nd respondent-BAMUL through the 3rd respondent within a week from today and with a direction to the 2nd respondent-BAMUL to consider the payment of the pending bills of the petitioner-Society for the months of April and May 2020 within ten days thereafter and also reserving them the liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 70 of the KCS Act in case they really find the element of dispute between them, the writ petition can be disposed of. Ordering accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.