ORDER : 1. The grievance of petitioner is that the representation dated 07.10.2023 submitted to the 1st respondent-Registrar of Societies to take action on the illegalities of Respondents 2 to 4, has not been considered. 2. Petitioner states that the 2nd respondent is a registered society, looking after the affairs of Hyderabad and Secunderabad Districts, the 3rd respondent is looking after the affairs through the State and the 4th respondent is the Central governing body of Jamiat Ahle Hadees Hind. It is stated that petitioner’s committee was elected by the Musallies of the area masjid namely Masjid-e-Mohammaida Jamat-e-Ahle Hadis, Ambernagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad, under the supervision of the 2nd respondent office bearers and the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 27.12.2015 for a tenure from 20.12.2015 to 19.12.2020. It is also stated that the tenure of the body expired by 19.12.2020; the 2nd respondent conducted election in a fair manner under the supervision of the office bearers on 21.02.2021 and the Committee was permitted for a term from 21.02.2021 to 20-2026. However, the 2nd respondent on the complaint of the opponent who lost election, without calling any objections, had taken away their right to vote in the forthcoming elections scheduled to be held on 07.01.2024 through Whats App, resultantly, their Masjid Committee and Halqa Committee (local unit) was dissolved unlawfully. It is stated that when the Managing Committee installed SS railing on the main entrance of Masjid door, it was broken by their opponent, which resulted in registration of FIR No. 202 of 2022. The case of petitioner is that their opponent candidate Mohammed Abdul Salam declared himself as President elected unanimously managing the waqf authorities in bringing proceedings dated 10.08.2022 and on 14.08.2022 declared that whatever the affairs of their mosque, they should be done according to the said Abdul Salam only and the Waqf Board would take the masjid into direct management. Petitioner is stated to have immediately approached the Waqf Board which directed them to bring a letter from the 2nd respondent that their committee is existing and the proceedings issued in the name of election lost candidate. Petitioner is stated to have immediately approached the Waqf Board which directed them to bring a letter from the 2nd respondent that their committee is existing and the proceedings issued in the name of election lost candidate. Accordingly, they approached the 2nd respondent on 14.08.2022, who, in response to the representation, vide letter dated 21.08.2022 dissolved the petitioner’s committee, observing that there were differences with Musallies, unwarranted police involvement instead of approaching Jamiat for conflict resolution; baseless FIR registrations against uninvolved parties; reluctance to engage with the settlement committee formed by Jamiat and the alleged involvement of his son, Secretary Abdul Quddus in a dance and singing programme shared on social media. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri J. Prabhakar appeared on behalf of Sri Mohammed Imthiyaz Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the 2nd respondent violated the provisions of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act’) and the rights guaranteed under the statute. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Section 14(3)(1) says that every Society shall maintain a register showing the names, addresses, occupation of the persons, who are members of the Committee and shall file with the Registrar a copy of the register within a period of fourteen days from the date of election of the members of the first Committee and in this case, Respondents 2 to 4 have violated the provisions of the Act and they cannot act on their own whims and fancies. 4. This Court while issuing notice to Respondents 2 to 4 vide order dated 05.01.2024, granted interim stay and the said order was extended from time to time. 5. Petitioner had taken out I.A. No. 2 of 2024 wherein by order dated 13.02.2024, the alleged opponent was brought on record as the 6th respondent. 6. The 3rd respondent filed the counter-affidavit stating that they are responsible for overseeing state-level affairs, acknowledges the petitioner’s concerns and expresses regret for the challenge faced. It is stated that it is imperative to bring to the Court’s attention that the 2nd respondent as the registered society for Hyderabad and Secunderabad cities, has not adhered to the established hierarchy. This respondent underscores its efforts to ensure compliance with the Act, however these efforts have been impeded by non-cooperation and non-compliance of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that it is imperative to bring to the Court’s attention that the 2nd respondent as the registered society for Hyderabad and Secunderabad cities, has not adhered to the established hierarchy. This respondent underscores its efforts to ensure compliance with the Act, however these efforts have been impeded by non-cooperation and non-compliance of the 2nd respondent. Despite acknowledging the petitioner’s representation, the 3rd respondent faces constraints in taking effective action against the 2nd respondent due to the latter’s non-adherence to established protocols. 7. The 2nd respondent filed the counter, the sum and substance of which is that the Society was formed with the aim to adhere to the constitution of the Markazi Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hind and would function to achieve its goals; elections of the Society have to be conducted as per Rules and Regulations of the said entity constituted under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Constitution. Petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain the present Writ Petition as he is not the President of the Society as on the date of filing the Writ Petition, states the 2nd respondent. According to them, the Society is a private entity not amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is stated that neither petitioner has an absolute right of consideration of his representation dated 07.10.2023 nor the 1st respondent is under legal obligation to consider the representation by virtue of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, more particularly having regard to the objections raised therein. The 1st respondent addressed reply letter dated 25.10.2023 mentioning that as per Section 23 of the Act, they have to approach the District Court concerned and that they are not legally entitled to consider the same. 8. Learned counsel Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan appearing for the 2nd respondent while reiterating the averments in the counter, submits that the 2nd respondent Society is a private legal entity governed by bye-laws of the Society and also Societies Registration Act, hence, it does not come under the definition of ‘State’. It is submitted that petitioner ought to have approached the District Court under Section 23. The other ground taken by the learned counsel is that petitioner is not the President of the Managing Committee as on the date of filing the Writ Petition, hence, Writ Petition is not maintainable. 9. It is submitted that petitioner ought to have approached the District Court under Section 23. The other ground taken by the learned counsel is that petitioner is not the President of the Managing Committee as on the date of filing the Writ Petition, hence, Writ Petition is not maintainable. 9. The simple prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is that the 1st respondent failed to take action on the illegalities of Respondents 2 to 4 duly considering his representation dated 07.10.2023. A consequential direction is also sought to allow petitioner Society members to participate in the elections scheduled on 07.01.2024. A perusal of the representation dated 07.10.2023 discloses that the office bearers are neither following the bye-laws of the Society approved by the Registrar of ‘Societies nor following the Registration Act; the President and the elected President omits all the office bearers which is against the bye-laws and they are preparing for elections in the next month with the same old practice; hence a direction was sought to publish the voters’ list of their members / voters along with their respective telephone numbers as the tenure of the elected members is finished. The Registrar of Societies, on considering the said representation, vide letter dated 25.10.2023 addressed to petitioner, stated that the Society Jamiat Ahl E Hadees for Education and Welfare is registered on 30.10.2004 and the latest amendment for change of body, change of name, amendment of bye-laws and annual filing was taken into Society records on 29.06.2016, thereafter, no documents were taken into Society records till date. It is also informed that the Registrar of Societies is not the competent authority to conduct elections and to resolve the disputes in respect of any matter relating to the internal affairs of the Society; Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act clearly envisages that Registrar of Societies is not conferred with any power to resolve the internal disputes of the society or disputes in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society or an issue regarding the elected members; hence, petitioner may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or may file an Application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary enquiry, pass such order as it may deem fit. It is further advised that the disputes of the Society with respect to conduct of elections may be resolved within the Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001. However, petitioner kept quiet from 25.10.2023 till 05.01.2024, and just before the elections scheduled to be conducted on 07.01.2024, he approached this Court. 10. When Section 23 specifically provides dispute redressal mechanism if a dispute arises between a society’s members or committee, any member can use the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve the dispute or file an Application with the District Court, which will investigate the dispute and pass an order as they deem fit, this Court is not ready to go into the details of the dispute and take in its fold its resolution. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Division Benches of this Court has been reiterating that when there is an efficacious and alternative remedy available, this Court, cannot overstep to decide the disputed questions of fact. Though several other contentions have been urged on either side, in view of the settled legal position and in the light of the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in their counter that petitioner is not the President of the Managing Committee at the time of filing the Writ Petition, hence they have no locus-standi and also availability of alternative remedy under Section 23, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief as sought in the Writ Petition, which, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed, however, leaving liberty to petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001. No costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.