ORDER : (Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.) : The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s: …It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction in the nature of a Writ declaring that, the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 or Rules or Bye-Laws do not contemplate removal of already admitted members into the PACS/PACCS by 31.01.2005, the date A.P. Act 6, 2005 came into force or make them ineligible to vote even though differential enhanced share capital is paid on the ground that they do not hold agricultural land either as owner or tenant and consequently to direct the Respondents to include all existing members by 31.01.2005, who pay differential enhanced share capital as voters in the ensuring Managing Committee Elections of PACS/PACCS and then only conduct the said elections and to pass such other order or orders…. 2. There is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (PACCS) at Jonnalagadda Village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District, consisting of Jonnalagadda, Dondapadu, Rangareddipalem, Kesanapalli, Kothapalem and Narsaraopet villages within the area of operation of the Society. The principal seat of the Society is situated at Jonnalagadda. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that Section 19 (1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short hereinafter called as ‘Act’), prescribed ‘Eligibility for Membership’ subject to the provisions of Section 21 (a) of the Act. As per the Section 21(a) of the Act, an individual who should attained majority and is of sound mind and who belongs to a class of persons, if any, for whom the Society is formed as per its bye-laws and who possess such qualifications as may be specified in the bye-laws or as may be prescribed for the concerned class of Societies in the interest of Cooperative movement. And also indicates that one shall hold hold an agricultural land either as an owner or a tenant in the area of operation of the said Society, in such a manner as may be prescribed. 3. Earlier to 2005 as per bye-laws of P.A.C.S./P.A.C.C.S. every person who is dependent on agriculture is entitled to become member of the Society and avail its services. 3. Earlier to 2005 as per bye-laws of P.A.C.S./P.A.C.C.S. every person who is dependent on agriculture is entitled to become member of the Society and avail its services. And Section 25 (1-A) was added by A.P. Act, 22 of 2001, which reads thus “A member of a Society shall be eligible to exercise the right to vote only if he:- (a) contributes a minimum share capital as may be prescribed”. Rule 18 of A.P. Co-operative Society Rules 1964 as amended by G.O.Ms.No. 37 dated 28.01.2002 prescribes that a member of a Society shall be eligible to exercise the right to vote only if he subscribes a minimum share capital of Rs.300/-. 4. And the authorities have informed the old members who were with Rs.10/- share capital to pay the balance share capital of Rs.290/- on or before 04.01.2013 to be eligible to become voters and in fact, the final list of the voters has to be published by the Election Officer along with issuance of Election Notification, as per the Rule 22 (2)(b)(vi) of the Act. Thus, the existing old members can pay the differential share capital on or before 21.01.2013 and become eligible to vote and prescribing the date 04.01.2013. 5. And the petitioner and other members were informed that they were removed from membership of the society on the ground that they did not pay the differential share capital and /or do not hold agricultural land either as the owner or tenant, when they requested the reasons for removal or ground for removal they were provided with the same by the Society. The said action was assailed in the Writ Petition on the ground that the action of the 2nd respondent Society is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Rules and Bye-laws of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. And as contemplated under Section 21(3) of the Act, where any person, who is not eligible for being admitted as member has been admitted as member or where the member who is disqualified to continue as member, he shall be removed by the General Body on its own motion or on a representation made to it by any member of the society or its federal society or its financing bank. Provided that no member shall be removed under this sub-section unless he had no opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action. 6. Provided that no member shall be removed under this sub-section unless he had no opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action. 6. And it is also contended that W.P. (PIL) 4 of 2013 was filed before the common High Court and the Hon’ble common High Court in W.P.(PIL)M.P. No.5 of 2013 in W.P.(PIL) No.4 of 2013 directed the Societies that “the person who were already members of the Cooperative Societies shall be entitled to deposit the difference of minimum share capital mentioned in Rule 18 of the Rules, till 16.01.2013. In case the officials of the concerned Cooperative Societies are not available or refused to receive the same, it shall be open to the concerned members to take a Demand Draft for that amount. The Election Officer shall be under obligation to include the names of such persons, in case the Demand Draft is taken on or before 16.01.2013. Despite the said direction, the respondents have not included the name of the petitioner herein, where he is intended to contest in the ensuing elections of the Managing Committee and therefore, the action of the respondents made deprived to contest in the elections for the 2nd respondent Society. Therefore, he would pray to direct the respondents to include all existing members in the ensuing Managing Committee elections of PACS/PACCS on receiving the enhanced share capital as voters, and then only to conduct the said elections and for other reliefs. 7. The 3rd respondent who filed counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 7, stating that the eligible members to vote for the society are 5849 and the managing committee who shall take decision on admission of membership in the society. The petitioner has not approached the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 19(2)(A) of the Act. If the applicant would have been approached the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the aforesaid Section, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies would have forwarded the same which secure the deemed membership of the individuals from the date of receipt of the applications by the Society. If the applicant would have been approached the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the aforesaid Section, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies would have forwarded the same which secure the deemed membership of the individuals from the date of receipt of the applications by the Society. None of the petitioners approached the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies nor brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies about their in-admission, without availing the opportunity provided under Section 19(2)(A) of the Act, the respondent Nos.3 to 7 are not empowered to admit the members except to forward the applications which were submitted under Section 19(2)(A) of the Act, and as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(PIL)M.P. No.5 of 2013 in W.P. (PIL) No.4 of 2013 has extended the time for payment of balance share capital up to 16.01.2013, the petitioners herein filed this Writ Petition on 18.01.2013 only to stalemate the election process and the elections were conducted to the society on 31.01.2013. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner as sought to be ventilated in this Writ Petition has abated and the cause in Writ Petition to survive for the above mentioned reasons and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. It is the summum bonum of the case set up by the respondents in the Writ Petition was that the writ petitioner along with other members have not approached the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies as contemplated under Section 19(2)(A) of the Act, whoever approaches the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies that they have been processed for the eligibility of the membership and as per the directions in W.P.(PIL)M.P. No.5 of 2013 of the W.P.(PIL) No.4 of 2013, the time was extended up to 16.01.2013 subsequent to the existing, and the petitioners herein have approached before this Court and filed Writ Petition on 18.01.2013 and they have received order copy on 07.02.2013, meanwhile elections were conducted on 31.01.2013 as per the schedule and it is orally agitated by learned counsel for the respondents once the election process is already set in motion, the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party is to move to the Election Tribunal. 9. 9. This Court vide proceedings / order dated 21.01.2013 has directed that the elections to the managing committee of PACS/PACCS Jonnalagadda Village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District, will be subject to the further orders in the Writ Petition and as per the counter averments the respondents have conducted the elections and they have not declared the result. 10. Though as per judgment of this Court when the petition is pending for considerable time the alternative remedy is no longer effective because of the pending Writ petition due to the delay in dispensing judgment as held in Kamatham Vijaya Lakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, wherein this Court at paragraph No.13 held as under: 9 MANU/AP/0457/2023, dated 16.03.2023 in W.P.No.13658 of 2021 "The principle is also well settled that notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy, if the petition has been admitted by the Court after hearing the parties and remained pending for considerable long period which renders the alternative remedy out of reach or makes it inefficacious, by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hirday Narain v. Income- tax Officer, Bareilly MANU/SC/0268/1970: AIR 1971 SC 33 ." 11. The said judgment is not applicable to the present facts of case in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred below observed that even dispute regarding preparation of electoral roll and breach of or non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Rules during preparation of electoral roll can be challenged in an election petition under the Cooperative Societies Act in deciding a dispute in relation to the election of the Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society and this Court is not permitted to conduct a roving inquiry into the deletion or addition of eligible or ineligible voters within its limited scope. 12. In Ahmednagar Zilla S.D.V. & P. Sangh Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 1 SCC 133 wherein it is held as follows: The learned counsel urged that the High Court ought not to have issued a direction for inclusion of the names of the respondents in the electoral roll in view of the fact that the preparation of the electoral roll is an intermediary stage in the process of the election and as such the High Court committed an error of jurisdiction. The learned counsel, in support, relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, reported in ( 2001 (8) SCC 509 ). In the said case it was held that the preparation of the voters list is an intermediary stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee and if there was breach of the rule in the preparation of the voters list, it could be called in question in an election petition after the election is over and the High Court is not required to interfere in the matter at this stage. The Apex Court, while dealing with the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 and the Rules made thereunder, held that preparation of voters' list is an intermediate stage in the process of the election of a specified society and that the election process having been already set in motion the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party is to move the Election Tribunal by raising an election dispute. 13. In Shri Sant Sadguru Janardhan Swamy (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Samithi v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 and the Rules made thereunder, held that preparation of voters' list is an intermediate stage in the process of the election of a specified society and that the election process having been already set in motion the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party is to move the Election Tribunal by raising an election dispute. 14. In M.A.R.V.S. Sai Baba and Ors. v. Commissioner and Registrar of Co-op. 14. In M.A.R.V.S. Sai Baba and Ors. v. Commissioner and Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and Ors., 1999 (2) ALD 319 = 1999 (2) ALT 233 , a Division Bench of A.P. High Court at Hyderabad held that the issue relating to the validity of the membership of the society including that of wrong admission of a member or non-inclusion of a valid member on the rolls of the Society is an issue to be decided before the election process begins and that once a decision is taken to hold the election and the election process commences by issuance of notification, any dispute in connection with the election, whether it relates to nominations or improper preparation of the electoral rolls or any other aspect pertaining to the elections have to be settled only in an election dispute raised under Section 61(3) of the Act. 15. As the election process having already begun in this case and in view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements, the present writ petition filed questioning the election notification cannot be entertained. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the omission of their names from the voters list, they have to take recourse to the remedy provided under Section 61(3) of the Act by raising an election dispute, after the completion of the election process and within the period of limitation stipulated under the statute. 16. This court has no authority to cancel an election that has been held for ten years since the voters' list was finalized, the approved list was published, and elections were carried out. Assuming that though the writ petition is maintainable from the very prayer in saying that ineligible voters were included and eligible were deleted. This Court is not permitted to conduct a roving inquiry into the deletion or addition of eligible or ineligible voters within its limited scope, as observed already, even limited disputed questions of fact are within the discretion of this Court to entertain and decide. 17. The election cannot be postponed by this court after lapse of ten years since the voters' list has been finalized, the approved list has been published, and the elections have been conducted. 18. Accordingly, Writ Petition fails and dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. 17. The election cannot be postponed by this court after lapse of ten years since the voters' list has been finalized, the approved list has been published, and the elections have been conducted. 18. Accordingly, Writ Petition fails and dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. However, the petitioner is directed to file an application for membership to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Narsaraopet, Guntur District, on filing of such application by the petitioner, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies is directed to consider his case for membership if he is eligible as per the provisions and rules of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act in accordance with law. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.