IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 15267 of 2009 Between: V. Udaybhasker, S/o. Late Narayana Swamy, At Khammam Sales Emporium No. II, Khammam O/o. A.P. State Handloom Weavers Cooperative SocietyLimited, Khammam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P. State Handloom Weaver's Cooperative Society Limited, Narayanaguda 3-5-770, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Marketing Officer, A.P. State Handloom Weaver's Co- operatie Society Limited, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declaring the action of the respondents in recovering the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner without passing any recovery orders by any of the authority and also without conductingany proper enquiry as contemplated under Rules is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and also in vioaltion Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and declare it is bad-in law and consequenty direct the respondents not to recover the amounts from the petitioner salary Counsel for the Petitioner:MRC.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in recovering the amount of Rs.2,500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner without passing any recovery orders by any of the authority and also without conducting any proper enquiry as contemplated under Rules is highly illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to recover the amounts from the petitioner salary. 2. The brief facts are that respondent No.2 on 24.01.2009 issued a memo to the petitioner seeking explanation for cause of difference of amounts, which were taken place in the periodical inspection from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2008 and subsequently passed orders on 30.04.2009 for recovery of amount of Rs.2,500/- per month on the ground that the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.50,649.10 Ps. 3. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, a statutory appeal provided for under the by-laws and the petitioner without exhausting to the said remedy of filing an appeal, approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 4. Having regard to the fact that the said appeal is an alternative efficacious remedy, this Court is of the view that this writ petition cannot be entertained at this juncture. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the first respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such filing, the appellate authority may hear the petitioner and pass necessary orders. Till such time, the recovery of an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month from the petitioner shall not be made. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 29th July, 2009 Note: Issue C.C today (B/O) KL/KSH