IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 26835 of 2008 Between: K. Kistaiah, S/o. K. Venkaiah, R/o. BDL, Township, Bhanur, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Dynamics Bhanur Employees Mutually Aided Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Rep by its Secretary, Having office at BDL, Bhanur, Medak District. 2 District Co-operative Office, Medak District at Sanga Reddy 3 The General Manager, BDL, Bhanur, Medak District. 4 Managing Director, APIIC Ltd. Basheerabagh, Hyderabad. 5 Managing Director, APIIC Ltd. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 6 Vice Chairman and Managing Director, HUDA, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 7 B. Swathantra Reddy, s/o. B. Ramchandra Reddy, R/o. Q.No. 303-A, R/o. BDL Township Bhadur, Medak District. 8 B. Bhaskar, S/o. Dev Raj, R/o. Q.No. 567-A, R/o. BDL Township Bhadur, Medak District. 9 B. Malla Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, R/o. Q.No. 505-A, R/o. BDL Township Bhadur, Medak District. 10 T. Ratnakala, W/o. Kistaiah, R/o. Q.No. 509-A, R/o. BDL Township Bhadur, Medak District. 11 Ch. Papaiah, S/o. Shankaraiah, R/o. Q.No. 763-A, R/o. BDL Township Bhadur, Medak District. 12 T.S.V. Narayan Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, R/o. Q.No. 355-A, R/o. BDL Township Bhadur, Medak District. 13 Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Co-op. Department, Secretatiat, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the recores relatings to the impunged order dated 3-11-2008 passed in LA No. 89 of 2007, I.A.No. 665 of 2008 and IA No. 200 of 2007 pertainig to OP NO. 16 to 2007 on the file of the Co- operative Tribunal, Medak District and dismissing the I.A. No. 89 of 2007, I.A. No. 665 of 2008 without appreciating the facts and allowing the I.A.No. 200 of 2008 without any sufficient cause and the impugned order of the Co-op. Tribunal, Medak is illegal, arbitrary and gaisnt the objects of APMACS Act, 1995 and consequently allow the I.A. No. 89 of 2007 and I.A.No. 665 of 2008 and issue such other writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.ROOPENDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.26835 OF 2008 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to the common order dated.03-11-2008 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, Medak in I.A.Nos.89 of 2007 and 665 of 2008 in O.P.No.16 of 2007 and to quash the same. The facts in brief are as under:- The petitioner herein along with 17 others filed O.P.No.16 of 2007 under Section.37(1) of A.P. Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act,1995 ( AP MACS Act) with a prayer to cancel the allotments made by the 1st respondent-Bharat Dynamics Bhanur Employees Mutually Aided Co-op Housing Society in favour of ineligible employees and other incidental directions. It was pleaded by them that the employees of Bharat Dhynamics Limited, a Government of India Enterprises, Ministry of Defence formed a Housing Society and on a request made by the said Society Ac.32.60 cents of land through APIIC was allotted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.18, Industries and Commerce Department dated 04-02-2003 for the purpose of house sites to its members. Subsequently the 1st respondent-Society was registered on 08.04.2002 under the provisions of the A.P.MACS Act. It is alleged that the managing committee of the 1st respondent-Society committed many irregularities in granting membership to the employees of Bharat Dynamics Limited as well as allotment of plots and several ineligible members were granted membership contrary to the bye-laws of the Society. Basing on a representation made by the petitioner and other employees, the District Collector, Medak ordered an enquiry into the affairs of the 1st respondent-Society. Accordingly the District Cooperative Office, Medak, having conducted an enquiry submitted a report and on the basis of the same the District Collector by letter dated.24-09-2006 instructed the managing committee of the 1st respondent-Society to allot the plots to eligible members only as per the eligibility criteria in the presence of the District Cooperative Officer, Sangareddy. Alleging that in spite of the said directions, the managing committee proceeded to allot plots to ineligible employees, the petitioner and others filed O.P.No.16 of 2007 raising a dispute under Section.7 of the A.P.MACS Act. Pending O.P.No.16 of 2007 they filed I.A.No.89 of 2007 seeking stay of the allotment of the plots and the same was initially ordered on 07-03-2007. Subsequently, the 1st respondent-Society filed I.A.No.200 of 2007 to vacate the order of stay. While so, the petitioners filed another application, being I.A.No.665 of 2008 alleging that the 1st respondent-Society was proceeding with the construction of the houses in the plots allotted to ineligible members and therefore they may be restrained with the constructions. The 1st respondent-Society filed a counter-affidavit opposing I.A.No.665 of 2008. After hearing both sides and on an appreciation of Exs.P-1 to P-44 documents filed by the petitioners and Exs.R-1 to R-42 documents filed by the 1st respondent-Society, the Tribunal by a common order dated 3.11.2008 dismissed I.A.Nos.89 of 2007 and 665 of 2008. Consequently I.A.No.200 of 2007 was allowed vacating the interim stay granted in I.A.No.89 of 2007. The said common order dated 3.11.2008 is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that since the managing committee of the 1st respondent-Society has been acting contrary to the procedure provided under the provisions of the A.P.MACS Act, Rules and bye-laws of the society, the Tribunal below ought to have continued the interim stay till the disposal of main O.P. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned consel for the 1st rsepondent soceity who entered appearance at the stage of admission itself and opposed the prayer in the writ petition. A perusal of the order under challenge shows that the Tribunal below after considering the relevant documents produced by both the parties as well as the bye-laws of the 1st respondent-Society recorded a finding that the petitioners in O.P.No.16 of 2007 are not members of the 1st respondent-Society. A further finding was recorded that the loans were already sanctioned in favour of the members of the 1st respondent- Society and constructions were in progress and the amounts were being deducted from their salaries. In the light of the said findings the Tribunal below held that the petitioners are not entitled to seek either allotment of plots or stay of constructions being made in the plots already allotted to the members. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the said findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal below on appreciation of voluminous material available on its file. Having regard to the said findings, particularly the finding that the petitioners are not the members of the 1st respondent-Society, the petitioners cannot be said to have made out any prima facie case for grant of the interim stay as prayed for. Since the balance of convenience is not infavour of staying the allotment of the plots or the constructions which are already in progress, the Tribunal below has rightly dismissed I.A.Nos.89 of 2007 and 775 of 2008. The impugned order which was passed after hearing both parties is neither in violation of the principles of natural justice nor it is the case of the petitioners that the said order is without jurisdiction. Hence it is not a case for issuing a writ of Certiorari as prayed for. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be a direction to the Tribunal below to dispose of the main O.P.No.16 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court and the findings recorded in the impugned order. It is also made clear that the finding recorded in the impugned order that the petitioners were not members of the 1st respondent society shall not be conclusive and the main O.P. shall be decided on appreciation of the evidence that may be produced by the parties, independently uninfluenced by the prima facie opinions expressed while deciding the interlocutory applications. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 12th December ,2008 *TSNR