Point of Law :
Law Commission of India in its 186th Report made certain proposals for appointment of Authorities under Environmental Laws - Recommendation was made to appoint Authorities who are having requisite knowledge and expertise in field made clear that training should be given to them - Law Commission considered various aspects of inexperience of quasi-judicial officials authorities appointed in various institutions including Environmental Authorities - Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board also considered said aspect and directed both State and Central Government to consider said aspect and appoint persons with requisite knowledge and expertise in relevant field in various quasi-judicial forums

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 21.01.2020 in I.A. No. 189 of 2019 in R.P. No. 1 of 2019 in I.A. No. 9 of 2018 in C.T.A. No. 3 of 2019, pending on the file of the 4th respondent-Cooperative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by calling for the records.

2. Heard Sri. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. K. Udayasri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Kona Vijay Kumar learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for the 2nd respondent.

3. The factual matrix of the present writ petition is as follows:

The petitioner is a Cooperative Bank, engaged in banking activities in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and Banking Regulations Act. An internal enquiry was conducted through which certain irregularities and misappropriation committed by certain employees of the bank including the 1st respondent were unearthed. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent while working as Assistant Manager at Ranigunj Branch committed certain irregularities, abused her official position and made transactions of Rs. 6,86,849/- on 11.03.2009 crediting the said amount to the S.B. account No. 757 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 10.05.2007 debited pay order for cash payments totaling to Rs. 11,86,849/-. According to the petitioner, a domestic enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against the 1st respondent wherein she had admitted her guilt.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner Bank raised a dispute under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) vide ARC No. 116 of 2014 for passing an Award declaring that the respondents therein are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 19,58,459-79 ps. along with simple interest from 01.12.2014 @ 10% per annum till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent has passed an award dated 17.11.2017 in ARC No. 116 of 2014 holding that the claim of the Bank stands proved against the respondents 1 and 3 and are held liable to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 19,58,459-79 ps. to the petitioner Bank along with future simple interest from 01.12.2014 @ 12% per annum till the date of realization.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, dated 17.11.2017 in ARC No. 116 of 2014 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 62(4) of the Act, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal under Section 76 of the Act vide CTA No. 3 of 2018. In CTA No. 3 of 2018, the 1st respondent has taken a specific preliminary objection saying that the dispute raised by the petitioner bank under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Act claiming the above said amount of Rs. 19,58,459-79 ps. along with interest against the 1st respondent and others is not maintainable. It is further contended by the 1st respondent that if at all the petitioner bank is having any grievance it has to initiate surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act, but not a dispute under Section 61 of the Act.

6. Along with the said appeal, the 1st respondent has also filed I.A. No. 9 of 2018 to suspend the award passed in ARC No. 116 of 2014 dated 17.11.2017. The 4th respondent Tribunal has allowed the said IA vide order dated 19.04.2018 and the award in ARC No. 116 of 2014 dated 17.11.2017 is suspended subject to condition of depositing 50% of the amount involved in the impugned order or furnishing security of equal value of the 50% of the amount within a period of (15) days from the date of the order.

7. The 1st respondent has filed a Review under Section 78 of the Act vide RP No. 1 of 2018 before the 4th respondent Tribunal seeking to review the order dated 10.04.2018 in I.A. No. 9 of 2018 in CTA No. 3 of 2018. Along with said Review Petition, the 1st respondent has also filed I.A. No. 189 of 2019 to suspend the order dated 10.04.2018 in I.A. No. 9 of 2018 in CTA No. 3 of 2018, pending review petition. The 4th respondent Tribunal vide order dated 21.01.2020 disposed of the said I.A. No. 189 of 2019 suspending the oper