Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J., NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
The Animal Husbandry Department Employees – Appellant
Versus
P.D. Kondala Rao and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 813 of 2022
Decided On : 26-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N. Ashwani Kumar.
For the Respondent: V.V.N. Narayana Rao.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that delay and laches can bar a writ petition, especially when an alternate remedy exists and has not been pursued.
Headnote:
Writ - Cooperative Societies - A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 61, 76 - The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction, particularly in cases of delay and laches, and upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's claim due to inordinate delay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of a cooperative housing society, was denied a plot of land despite being a member since 2000. After a long delay, he filed a writ petition challenging the earlier decision of the Assistant Registrar, which had dismissed his claim in 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not pursued available remedies in a timely manner and had accepted the earlier decision for nearly a decade. The court ruled that the delay and laches barred the petitioner's claim, and the alternate remedy was not exhausted.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could seek relief through a writ petition after a significant delay and without exhausting the alternate remedy available under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of an alternate remedy is a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially when the petitioner has delayed seeking relief and has not provided a reasonable explanation for such delay.
Result: The writ appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the lower court was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against judgment and order, dated 05.12.2019, passed in W.P. No. 7401 of 2018.
2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that, the petitioner, on account of having served in the Animal Husbandry Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh, was admitted as the member of the Animal Husbandry Employees’ Cooperation House Building Society. It is not denied that the petitioner was admitted as a member of the Society in the year, 2000, and continues to remain as such till date.
3. By virtue of Government Order bearing G.O.Ms. No. 158, Revenue (Assignments-I (2) Department), dated 13.02.2006, land measuring eighteen acres and seventy eight cents in Sy. No. 133/P of Chinagadili Village, Visakhapatnam District came to be allotted in favour of the President of the appellant Society, which was subject to payment of the value fixed by the said Government Order. Upon the land having been allotted to the Society, the members were considered for allotment, however the petitioner was not found eligible for allotment of a plot in the aforementioned allotted land by the Board of Directors in accordance with the bye-laws. This decision was challenged before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in terms of the provisions of Section 61 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. By virtue of order dated 23.08.2008, the petition came to be dismissed.
4. The petitioner even when he had a remedy of challenging the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies before the Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act of 1964, he did not choose to do so. However, having waited for a period of almost 10 years, without availing the remedy before the Tribunal, in the year 2018, preferred a writ petition bearing No. 7401 of 2018 challenging the order dated 23.08.2008 as being contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1964 and with a further relief of mandamus for direction to the respondent to allot one plot to the petitioner.
5. It appears the reason advanced in the writ petition by the petitioner for not challenging the order dated 23.08.2008 in time was that he had been awaiting the result of the appeals filed by other affected members. It is stated that certain other employees, who are other members of the society were also refused the plots, had approached the Assistant Registrar by way of Arbitration cases, which were dismissed. The orders of dismissal were challenged before the Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act of 1964 and by virtue of which, the Tribunal issued directions in favor of the said members of the society declaring them to be eligible to receive the plots in question.
It was further averred that the writ petition filed by the Society challenging the order of the Tribunal was subsequently dismissed. It is only after the dismissal of the writ petition the petitioner states that he chose to file the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge vide W.P. No. 7401 of 2018.
6. The appellant society in its response in the writ proceedings had taken a stand that there was an equal and efficacious alternate remedy which is available to the petitioner before the Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act of 1964 which had not been availed and that the Writ Court ought not to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without first permitting the petitioner to exhaust the alternate remedy. The second ground which had been urged was that the petition in any case was barred by delay and laches and therefore ought not to be entertained.
7. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned Single Judge rejected the objections so raised firstly on the ground that alternate remedy was not a bar as there was a violation of principles of natural justice and secondly that even delay and laches would not stand in the way of the petitioner as he had been awaiting the outcome of the appeals filed by similarly situated indiv
