THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

ORDER

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the award and recovery certificate passed in AA/CF/No.421 of 2021 dated 20.11.2021 by the Deputy Registrar of Chits Warangal District at Hanamkonda.

2. Petitioners are opponent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and respondent No.1 is the disputant in AA/CF/No.421 of 2021 and respondent No.2 is the Deputy Registrar of Chits.

3. It is stated in the cause title of the Civil Revision Petition that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the petition.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the award and recovery certificate passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal is erroneous in Law and against the material available on record. Respondent No.2 failed to follow the procedure enunciated under Rule 50 of A.P. Chit Funds Rules, 2008. The award and recovery certificate issued is illegal.

4.2. Respondent No.1 now taking advantage of the ex parte award and recovery certificate initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.31 of 2023 which is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence with regard to the amount claimed by them, award for Rs.91,716/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.80,725/- is awarded from the date of filing till the date of realization with costs of Rs.3,995/-.

4.3. The learned Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal has not assigned any reasons as to how the said amounts are to be paid by the petitioners – opponent Nos.1, 2 and 5. In support of his contentions has relied on the decision of this Court in Jogu Venkatamma Vs.

Hamsika Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.,¹

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners-opponent Nos.1, 2 and 5 has a remedy under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act and the CRP is not maintainable, respondent No.2 has followed the procedure contemplated under Chit Fund Rules and rightly passed the award and recovery certificate, which does not requires interference of this Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in (1) Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C.Krishnan2 (2) Mohammed Tajuddin Vs. Srinidhi Chits (Hyderabad) Private Limited³ (3) Sri G.Thimma Reddy Vs. M/s. Dhanwan Chit Fund Pvt.

Ltd⁴

1 CRP No.478 of 2024, dated 17.06.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana

at Hyderabad

2 2001 6 SCC 569

3 CRP No.1599 of 2025, dated 02.05.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana

6. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.

7. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the award and recovery certificate passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal District at Hanamkonda in AA/CF/No.421 of 2021 dated 20.11.2021 suffers from procedural defects? If so does it requires interference of this Court?

8. The award dated 20.11.2021 goes to show that notice to petitioner No.1 - opponent No.1 is served as per the postal acknowledgment. Notice to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 – opponent Nos.2 and 5 is given by way of paper publication.

9. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, formulated certain principles which reads as under:

"(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

at Hyderabad

4 CRP No.652 of 2020, dated 02.02.2022 of the High Court for the State of Telangana

at Hyderabad

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous consid