Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. By his order dated 29.10.2012 the Learned Single Judge, before whom W.P. Nos. 31138 of 2012 and 31974 of 2012 were listed, observed that the earlier judgment, in S. Varalakshmi v. District Co-operative Office, Hyderabad, 2003 (6) ALD 516, required reconsideration by a Division Bench for rendering an authoritative pronouncement on the aspect whether Section 36 of the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (for short the 1995 Act) intended to extend the application of the provision of an appeal, under Section 76 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the 1964 Act), to an order passed in execution proceedings under Section 36 of the 1995 Act. The Learned Single Judge was also of the opinion that the issue, whether Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short the 1964 Rules), which was made in the exercise of the powers of delegated legislation conferred on the State Government under Section 130 of the 1964 Act and was not incorporated by reference by any of the provisions of the 1995 Act, could be invoked for execution of the awards passed under the 1995 Act, also required consideration by the Division bench.

2. Elaborate submissions were put forth by Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Bank; the Learned Advocate General and the Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana and Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 31794 of 2012.

3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary to answer the reference, are that the Prudential Co-operative Bank Limited, (the petitioner in W.P. No. 31138 of 2012 and a Co-operative Society registered under the 1995 Act), advanced loans to the 5th respondent therein for which respondent Nos. 2, 6 and 7 stood as guarantors. As the 5th respondent defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, proceedings in O.P. No. 408 of 2001 were instituted before the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) by the petitioner bank under Section 37 of the 1995 Act. An award was passed by the Tribunal on 06.01.2011 for Rs. 48,62,201.99 Ps with future interest at 22% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 39,25,000/-. The petitioner-bank filed E.P. No. 64 of 2011, before the Tribunal, on 05.09.2011 to execute the award. The Tribunal transmitted the execution proceedings to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad who, in turn, delegated his powers to the Sales Officer, Prudential Co-operative Bank, Secunderabad (the 3rd respondent).

4. The 3rd respondent brought the immovable properties to sale and, pursuant thereto, they were put to sale on 31.08.2012. However, before the sale was confirmed, one of the guarantors preferred an appeal, in CTA No. 72 of 2012, before the Tribunal questioning the validity of the sale proceedings. Thereafter the appellant in CTA No. 72 of 2012 filed I.A. No. 188 of 2012 seeking stay of all further proceedings. By its order dated 28.09.2012, the Tribunal granted interim stay subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 50 lakhs by 19.10.2012. Aggrieved thereby both the petitioner bank, and the appellant in CTA No. 72 of 2012, filed W.P. Nos. 31138 and 31974 of 2012 respectively. Before the Learned Single Judge it was contended, on behalf of the petitioner-bank, that no appeal lay, much less to the Tribunal, against orders passed in execution proceedings instituted pursuant to an order passed under Section 37 of the 1995 Act. On the other hand it was contended, on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. No. 31974 of 2012, that, if this contention was accepted, it would mean that the 1964 Rules (more particularly Rule 52 thereof), which were made under Section 130 and did not form part of Chapter X of the 1964 Act, would also not apply to execution of an award passed under the 1995 Act.

5. In A. Vemanaidu v. Erracheruvupalle Primary Coop. Society, Chittoor District (2002 (4) ALD 700, the petitioner had obtained agricultura