IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
J. Venkateswarlu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture & Cooperation Department, Secretariat & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 18400 of 2017
Decided On : 23-06-2017
Result—Writ Petition allowed.
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.849/2017-D dated 17.05.2017 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary tainted with bias, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of T.S.C.S.Act and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as may be just and necessary in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader from the office of the Additional Advocate General representing the respondents and perused the prayer in the writ petition with supporting affidavit and the counter affidavit filed by the District Cooperative Officer/3rd respondent) and also reply to it with enclosure and perused the other material on record including from the attention drawn by the learned Government Pleader to the balance sheet as on 31.03.2016 and the preamble of the Bye-laws with reference to Section 2(p)(q)(r)(f) and Section 34(6) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) amended by the State of Telangana in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 20.05.2016.
3. The core contention of the respondents from the counter in opposing the writ petition besides that the writ petition is not maintainable and there is an appeal remedy under Section 76 of the Act to approach the Cooperative Tribunal, apart from disputed facts involved in the case and not a pure question of law, even apart from the arguments sake to entertain a writ petition, the society in question is not a credit society nor doing any lending, borrowing activity to claim any obligation of consultation as per Section 34(6) of the Act of any financing bank before superseding the management for the fact that there is no financing bank through which they obtained finances, apart from the very Bye-laws mentions the objects that the society is not authorized to deal any credit of any lending and borrowing, as Bye-laws speaks from the objects as it is a cooperative society to arrange for market and sale of fertilizers, seeds etc., and the society is essentially an agency involved in distribution of fertilizers and seeds and agricultural implements to the members of the society and the plea that the impugned orders are vitiated by the non-observance of Section 34 (6) of the Act does not hold water and thereby, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. It is one of the submissions by the learned Special Government Pleader with reference to the balance sheet of the Society as on 31.03.2016 that there is nothing to show worth mentioned any financing bank to the society.
5. This Court is fresh in mind from the order dated 15.06.2017 in W.P.No.14733 of 2017 in Janga Raghava Reddy and others v. the State of Telangana (Co-operative Department) and others, where it is categorically held that despite appeal remedy, writ petition is maintainable including to adjudicate any question of fact also and once there is any violation of statutory provision, writ petition is maintainable by referring to more than two expressions particularly one in relation to Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and the other in relation to Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, apart from the expression of the Constitution Bench in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233(1).
6. Now, the additional fact required to be considered herein is, the learned Special Government Pleader drawn the analogy with reference to Order 47 Rule 2 C.P.C. by saying one of the members of the superseded Managing Committee already approached the Cooperative Tribunal by maintaining appeal under Section 76 of the Act and with reference to it, as per Order 47(1) sub-rule (2), a party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of ju
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.