IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19955 of 2008 Between: Sri Sainath Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Regd. TBC No. 344, Plot No. 19, Bahadurpally Village, Bowrampet Post, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Rep. by its Secretary, Sri N. Papa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at Chandra Vihar Building, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Registrar, Divisional Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad (West) Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3 P. Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. P.J. Mohan Rao, R/o. Plot No. 788/A, Vivekanandanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 4 Karapala Venkata Srinivasa Sathya Kumar, S/o. K.V. Subba Rao, R/o. Plot No. 108, Sector - V, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. 5 K. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Adisesha Reddy, R/o. 530, River Bottom Road, Athens, GA 30606, U.S.A. .....RESPONDENTS 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order Dt. 3-4-2008 passed by the 1st Respondent in C.T.A.No. 137 of 2008 where by setting aside the Award passed by the 2nd Respondent in ARC No. 223/2001-D Dt. 03-02-2001, as illegal, improper, perverse, and arbitrary besides being contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and Rules and also Bye-Laws of the Petitioner Society. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.SANKARAYYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is a Cooperative Society and the ﬁfth respondent is its member. He was allotted plots bearing No.107-B and 108-B from out of a layout in the land located at Bahadurpally Village, Ranga Reddy District. Alleging that the ﬁfth respondent is due a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards development charges, the petitioner- society approached the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the second respondent herein, under Section 61 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). The second respondent passed an ex parte award, dated 03.02.2001, not only calling upon the ﬁfth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- on or before 30.06.2001, but also directing the petitioner-society to cancel the registration of the plots and to allot the same to others, in the waiting list. In view of the default committed by the ﬁfth respondent in paying the amount, the petitioner-society is said to have allotted the plots to respondents 3 and 4 after cancelling the registration of the fifth respondent. The ﬁfth respondent ﬁled C.T.A.No.137 of 2007 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, through its judgment, dated 03.04.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner-society approached the second respondent under Section 61 of the Act with a prayer to pass an award for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,000/-. The record discloses that the summons issued to the ﬁfth respondent were not returned served and on the postal covers, it was endorsed that he left from the address. Therefore, he was set ex parte. The ex parte award, dated 03.02.2001, passed by the second respondent reads as under: “Sri K.Srinivas Reddy is called upon to pay an amount of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand only) on or before 30.06.2001. Failing which the society is directed to cancel the registration and allot the same to waiting list members.” From a perusal of this, it is clearly evident that the second respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Act. Even assuming that the claim of the petitioner-society against the ﬁfth respondent was proved, at the most, an award for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,000/- could have ensued. The second respondent, however, proceeded to direct the petitioner-society to cancel the registration in favour of the ﬁfth respondent and to allot the resultant plots to others. That was not even the prayer of the petitioner-society nor it could have constituted any adjudication under Section 61 of the Act. The Tribunal has commented upon the award passed by the second respondent and has correctly set aside the same. The reasons furnished by the Tribunal are proper, though it could have maintained some restraint in making comments as to the conduct of the second respondent. This Court does not ﬁnd any basis to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in case the ﬁfth respondent is still due any amount to the petitioner-society, it shall always open to it to recover the same, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.09.2008. kdl