IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3725 of 2007 Between: The Ramakrishna Mutually Aided Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Regd. Office at Nidadavolu, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Nandina Subba Rao S/o. Ramanna, aged 70 years, R/o. Nidadavolu, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Koruakonda Buli Raju S/o Ganesh C/o. P.A.C.S. Kalavalapalli Post, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Poduri Macha Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Eluru Post, West Godavari District. 3 Goutu Satyanarayana S/o. Chandra Rao Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Kalavalapalli Post, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 The A.P. Co-operative Tribunal at Vijayawada, Rep. by its Secretary. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in O.P.No. 71 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the 4th Respondent -Tribunal and quash the Orders dt. 13-9-2005 in O.P.No. 71 of 2004 as opposed to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and quash the same by restoring O.P.No. 71 of 2004 on its ﬁle with a direction to the 4th Respondent-Rebunal to dispose oﬀ the matter on merits; and to pass such other order or orders in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3725 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is a Mutually Aided Co-operative Society. It feels aggrieved by an order, dated 13.09.2005, passed by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, in O.P.No.71 of 2004. The 1st respondent is said to have borrowed certain amount from the petitioner-society and that respondents 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for repayment of the borrowed amount. Alleging that the 1st respondent committed default in payment of the amount, the petitioner ﬁled the O.P., before the Tribunal. It was dismissed through the impugned order, following the Judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in M.Babu Rao vs. Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies[1], wherein it was held that a co- operative society, undertaking banking activity, has to institute proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Tribunal constituted under the Co-operative Societies Act, is not competent to deal with such matters. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation. The only ground, on which the O.P. ﬁled by the petitioner was dismissed, is that the O.P. is not maintainable, in view of the Judgment of this Court in M. Babu Rao’s case (1 supra). Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with this very question in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. [2] It was held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction in the matters of this nature and the societies can institute proceedings before the Tribunals constituted under the respective enactments. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, for fresh consideration and disposal. It is represented that the 2nd respondent is no more. The petitioner shall take steps to bring the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent on record, or to give up the claim against him, as the case may be. There shall be no order as to costs. ________ 08.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3725 of 2007 Date: 08.09.2008 JSU [1] 2005(4) ALT 327 (F.B) [2] (2007) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 236