IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10135 of 2002 Between: Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Narmetta, Narmetta Mandal, Warangal District. … Petitioner And The Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Chairman, M.J. Road, Hyderabad, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Ramadas Bhadri Raju Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Cooperation This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10135 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order dated 15.04.2002 in I.A.No.999 of 2000 in CTA(SR).No.5326 of 2000 passed by respondent No.1 - Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). Respondent No.3 was the employee of the petitioner society. The disputes between the two were referred to an arbitrator under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). The arbitrator passed an award on 31.08.1999 in ARC.No.1 of 1999 in favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.4, who was the President of the petitioner society at that time, filed appeal against the said order of the arbitrator. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed I.A.No.628 of 2000 for advancement of the appeal, which was posted to 17.07.2000. Accordingly, the case was advanced to 05.07.2007 and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of respondent No.4. The Person-in-charge Committee, which has taken over the management of the petitioner society, filed a fresh appeal in CTA(SR).No.5326 of 2000 with a delay of 339 days. It has also filed I.A.No.999 of 2000 for condonation of the said delay. The said delay application was dismissed by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that a fresh appeal in the face of the order dismissing the earlier appeal becoming final is wholly misconceived and consequently the application for condonation of delay was without any merit. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasoning of the Tribunal, I do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter. Admittedly, CTA No.292 of 1999 and the proposed CTA arise out of the same order. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 had withdrawn the earlier appeal by playing fraud on the Tribunal. Irrespective of whether there was fraud or not, the fact remains that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Even assuming that respondent No.4 has committed fraud that would have offered the best ground for the petitioner to seek restoration of the said appeal. The petitioner cannot treat the order withdrawing the appeal as non est and file a fresh appeal. Even if the earlier appeal was not disposed of on merits, the same having been withdrawn and dismissed as such bars the petitioner from filing a fresh appeal against the same order. Therefore, the Tribunal below rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing a fresh appeal as wholly misconceived. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.01.2010 ES