THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.1772 OF 2002 Date: 03.08.2011 Between: M.Ananthaiah and another …..Petitioners And The Colliery Manager, Kasipeta Mine, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarri, Adilabad District and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.1772 OF 2002 ORDER: The two petitioners herein are employees of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The first respondent who is the Manager of Kasipeta Mine of Singareni Collieries Company Limited has issued two separate notices dated 1-12-2001 to both the petitioners informing them that certain sums of money are due from them to the 3rd respondent cooperative credit society and the Adilabad District Cooperative Central Bank Limited has advised him to recover the said amounts and that the said amounts will be recovered from their emoluments. Challenging the said notices, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus or any other appropriate order to setting aside the said notices and for a direction to the 1st respondent not to recover any amounts. 2. The 2nd respondent is the Deputy Cooperative Officer, Cooperative Department at Mancherial and the 3rd respondent is the Singareni Collieries Company Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Somagudem, represented by the Deputy Registrar/Officer on special duty, Adilabad District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Somagudem. The said society is stated to be defunct now. 3. The version of the petitioners is that they never borrowed any amounts from the 3rd respondent society and that the then President and Secretary and some of officers of the 3rd respondent society misappropriated all the amounts of the society and a criminal case has also been registered against them and the case is reported to be pending. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating their plea pointed out that petitioners never borrowed any amounts and the 3rd respondent society sent a notice and advised the 1st respondent to recover the amounts and their claim is totally baseless and unjust and therefore, the said notices should be quashed. He also pointed out that this Court in a similar matter by its order dated 2-8-2006 passed in writ petition No.14532 of 2001 filed by another employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited directed concerned officer who issued a similar notice to hold enquiry into the matter and find out whether any amount was due from the petitioner and thereafter proceed to recover it if the amount is found due. The learned counsel for petitioners says that the said order has become final and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief in this writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri E.V.Suresh Kumar, Advocate, representing the learned counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited pointed out that the 1st respondent has merely acted as a recovery agent or an executing authority on the advice of the 3rd respondent and that he has no knowledge about the loan transaction between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent society. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 did not appear. This however does not make any difference. 6. As matters stand, a perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14532 of 2001 would show that a similar controversy arose in that writ petition and a direction was given to the 1st respondent therein to hold an enquiry in the first instance and then take a decision about recovery of money if the amount is due from them. Of course, a similar order can be passed in this writ petition also. The learned counsel for the petitioners is however unable to show how the decision of the 1st respondent will be binding on the 3rd respondent, and also on the petitioners if it goes against them. In fact the dispute between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent should be decided in a proper forum. However it is not necessary to go into those aspects. 7. In the circumstances, in view of the relief granted in W.P.No.14532 of 2001, the same relief is granted in this writ petition also and both the petitioners shall submit a representation to the 1st respondent within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order putting forth their case and thereafter concerned officer of the 1st respondent take a decision in the matter after giving due opportunity to the 3rd respondent society. Till the 1st respondent takes a decision, the stay of recovery of amounts shall continue. It is however made clear that this relief is granted only in view of the relief granted in the aforesaid W.P.No.14532 of 2001 and the decision of the 1st respondent in the matter shall not be binding on either of the parties if it is not otherwise binding under any other provision of law. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 3rd August, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.1772 OF 2002 DATE: 03.08.2011