The short question that falls for consideration, in this Writ Petition, is whether the 3rd respondent is an Agent of the petitioner and, therefore, an application under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act,1964 (for short the Act) is maintainable?

2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Judgment dated 1-2-2002 made in C.T.A.No.90 of 2000 on the file of the 1st respondent-A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the Award under Section 62(4) of the Act in A.R.C.No.1067/99-J1, dated 29-1-2000 passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed under Section 61 of the Act, was reversed.

3. It is stated in the writ affidavit that the petitioner is a society registered under the Act and is working under the control of the State Government in co-operative sector. It entered into an agreement with M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited for the purpose of earthwork excavation to the tune of 75.19 lakh bank cubic meters at Madepally O.C. Project, Karimnagar district. For the purpose of execution of the said work, petitioner was in need of machinery; therefore, invited tenders for hiring machinery and the 3rd respondent was one of the participants in the tender. After opening the tenders and after negotiations, the work was allotted to three companies, namely, (1) M/s. ABC Engineering Works, (2) M/s. Topcon Projects (3rd respondent) and (3) M/s. Allam. Subbarayudu. Separate agreements were entered into between the petitioner and the three companies. Insofar as the 3d respondent is concerned, an agreement was entered into by the petitioner on 14-11-1998. The agreement was based on payment of hire charges for machinery on the basis of turnover of the work. The payment towards hire charges shall be made against the progressive bills detailing the outturn duly.

certified by the concerned Officer of the petitioner. As per the terms of the agreement, the 3rd respondent had to execute 10 lakh bank cubic meters of work. The 3rd respondent failed to execute the work within the specified time contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, apart from withdrawing the machinery without any intimation to the petitioner, due to which the petitioner suffered loss and the security deposit of the 3rd respondent had been forfeited. Since the 3rd respondent failed to fulfil the contractual obligation, the petitioner suffered heavy loss. However, the 3rd respondent made a false claim before the 2nd respondent purported to be under Section 61 of the Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,46,39,366/-. But, the claim petition was rejected by the 2nd respondent stating that the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the 3rd respondent contains no arbitration clause and the dispute is of civil nature. Further, the 3rd respondent herein is neither a cooperative society nor a member of A.P. State Rural Irrigation Corporation (petitioner) as the Corporation had hired the 3rd respondents machinery for excavation work at Singareni Collieries Company Limited and the dispute will come under the civil courts jurisdiction, but not under the Act; therefore, the application under Section 61 of the Act is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the3rd respondent preferred an appeal being C.T.A.No.90 of 2000 before the 1st respondent under Section 76(1) of the Act. Accordil1g to the petitioner, 1st respondent erroneously and without proper application of mind allowed the appeal on 27-4-2000 holding that the claim of the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent is maintainable under Section 61 of the Act, since the 3rd respondent is an Agent of the 1st respondent (petitioner). Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.9443 of 2000 and this Court by an Order dated 11-10-2001 set aside the Judgment of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh decision by giving opportunity to both the parties. Thereafter, according to the petitioner,