IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:14877 of 2000 Between: Venigalla Krishna Prasad S/o. Late Satyanarayana R/o. 2lane Shyamala Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Duggirala Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd Rep. by its Secretary , Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District. 2 The Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Coop.Societies- cum- Officer on Special Duty, G.D.C.C.Bank Ltd., Tenali, Guntur District. 3 The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal rep. by its Secretary, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.3:AGP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash Award No.2/90-91, dated 11.12.1991 of respondent No.2 and order, dated 18.02.2000 passed in O.A.No.68 of 1997 of respondent No.3. The petitioner was the President of respondent No.1 society during the period from 1987 to 1990. A claim was made by respondent No.1 society against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.29,176/- towards the alleged failure of the petitioner to account for the said sum. Initially, the said claim was entertained by the Senior Inspector/Sales Manager, Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Tenali. After he commenced the proceedings, he recorded and marked the statement of the Secretary of respondent No.1 society and has taken on ﬁle certain documents as exhibits. The arbitration proceedings were later transferred to respondent No.2, who, thereafter proceeded with the case and passed an ex parte award on 11.12.1991. The said award was initially challenged in CMA.No.1 of 1991 on the ﬁle of the Cooperative Tribunal-cum-Principal District Munsif, Tenali and later, the same was transferred to the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and re-numbered as O.A.No.68 of 1997. The Tribunal dismissed the same by it’s order, dated 18.02.2000, which is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not properly considering the two contentions raised by the petitioner before it, namely, 1) the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing aﬀorded by respondent No.2 and 2) in view of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of respondent No.1 society entrusting cashbook and other responsibilities to the Paid Secretary, the petitioner is not liable for the shortfall. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have not felt inclined to accept the same. As regards the ﬁrst contention, the Tribunal adverted to the same and held that after transfer of the ﬁle, the Arbitrator issued summons to the petitioner, who received the same on 11.11.1991, but he did not appear before the Arbitrator on 18.11.1991. The basis for this ﬁnding given by the Tribunal was counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2 in I.A.No.1962 of 1991 in CMA.No.1 of 1991, which was ﬁled before the Cooperative Tribunal-cum-Principal District Munsif, Tenali, before the same was transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to the contents of the said counter-aﬃdavit, which further revealed that another set of summons was sent to the petitioner through certiﬁcate of posting to appear on 11.12.1991, but he failed to avail the said opportunity. Apart from these two circumstances, the Tribunal also found that on the application of the petitioner only, stay was granted by respondent No.2, who had eventually summoned the entire ﬁle to himself and acted as Arbitrator. On this premise, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the petitioner that he had no knowledge of the proceedings before respondent No.2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the above-mentioned ﬁnding rendered by the Tribunal regarding service of summons, I do not ﬁnd any force in his contention. Indeed, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the Tribunal to substantiate his contention that summonses were not served on him. He did not seek an opportunity of examining himself as a witness before the Tribunal to support his plea that he did not receive any summons. Even at the hearing, his counsel was not present. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he ﬁled rejoinder to the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled in I.A.No.1962 of 1991 controverting the plea of respondent No.2 that summons was served on the petitioner on 11.11.1991. On these facts, I do not ﬁnd any error in the ﬁnding of the Tribunal that summonses were duly served on the petitioner and he failed to appear before respondent No.2. With regard to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal relied on byelaw Nos.26(1) and 26(2) of the society byelaws. Byelaw No.26(1) vests in the President all the powers pertaining to the administration of the society and under byelaw No.26(2), he is the custodian of all the properties of the society including that of cash balance. The plea of the petitioner is that the society passed a resolution as envisaged in byelaw No.26(1) entrusting cashbook and administration to the Paid Secretary. This resolution was not placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal recorded the finding, and in my view, rightly that the said resolution was neither ﬁled nor the petitioner made any attempt before it to exhibit the same. Therefore, the Tribunal was justiﬁed in not taking into consideration the said resolution. It also placed reliance on the undertaking given by the petitioner to the person-in-charge, who succeeded him, to the eﬀect that he will hold himself responsible for all the activities carried on during his tenure as President of the society. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the second contention as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the same transaction, the award was passed against one Shaik Mohammed Mahaboob Subhani, Ex- Secretary of Duggirala PACS and, therefore, the award passed against the petitioner is in conﬂict with the said award. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show to the Court that the petitioner raised this ground before the Tribunal. Unless he had raised this ground and the Tribunal has not considered the same, this Court is not inclined to consider it for the first time in this writ petition. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not ﬁnd any error in the order passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni