IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16234 of 2008 Between: Chandra Shekhar Konda S/o. Veerappa Konda Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, R/o. 7-1-78, B-101, Balaji Bhagyanagar Apartments, Ameerpet, Near Sheeshmahal Theatre, Hyderabad. A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Divisional Cooperative Officer, Charminar Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Veerashaiva Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad, Regd. No. TA 1429/97 (Since Merged with Agrasen Coop. Bank Ltd.,) 16-2-701/6/9 Opp. Sri Krupa Market, Malakpet, Hyderabad, A.P. 3 Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., R.No.. TA 1439, H.No. 15-2-391/392/1 Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman. 4 Sri Mohd. Anwarulla S/o. Not known R/o. Hyderabad. 5 Sri M.A. Khaleemulla Shabbir S/o. Not known R/o. Hyderabad. 6 M. Ravindranath S/o. Late Sri M. Basappa R/o. Hyderabad. 7 M. Prakashnath S/o. Late Sri M. Basappa R/o. Hyderabad. 8 Sri Venkateswarlu S/o. Late Sri M. Basappa R/o. Hyderabad. 9 Smt. Uma Baswa Raj W/o. Jajmi Baswa Raj R/o. Hyderabad. 10 D. Uma Maheswar Rao S/o. Late D. Linga Murthy R/o. Hyderabad. 11 G.C. Basweshwar S/o. Late D. Linga Murthy R/o. Hyderabad. 12 Dr. Ramesh Babu S/o. Late D. Linga Murthy R/o. Hyderabad. 13 G. Swayam Prakash S/o. Late D. Linga Murthy R/o. Hyderabad. 14 C. Balakrishna S/o. Not known R/o. Hyderabad. 15 Smt. Meenakshi A Patil W/o. Not known R/o. Hyderabad. 16 Smt. Padmaja patil W/o. Not known R/o. Hyderabad. 17 V.S. Murthy S/o. Not known R/o. Hyderabad. 18 Sri Vijayarangam S/o. Not known (No notice is required to 2nd Respondent Bank since it is me with 3rd Respondent w.e.f 18-7-2007) (No Notice is required to 4th to 18th Respondents since the are only proforma parties and no relief is claimed against t .....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 a writ order or orders more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the orders dt. 16-7- 2008 of the Honourable A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in IA no. 582/08 in CTA No. 82/08 under Rule 11 of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1994 as without jurisdiction illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rule 12 of the AP Coop Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1994 and hence modify the same by suspending the impugned order of the 1st Respondent in Rc No. 2166/03UB.A dt. 30-4-2008 without insisting for furnishing of security to 50% of the Surcharge amount and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.BHADRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16234 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order passed by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 15-07-2008 in I.A.No.582 of 2008 in CTA.No.82 of 2008 under which the interim suspension of the surcharge proceedings dated 30-04-2008 were granted subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishing security of 50% of the surcharge amount within one month. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that since it is not a case of misappropriation of the amounts or sanction of benami loans, the condition imposed by the Rule 11 of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 is not applicable and therefore, Tribunal below committed an error in granting interim suspension subject to furnishing of security of 50% of the surcharge amount. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and having perused the material on record, I do not find any substance in the said contention. It is true that in cases to which Rule 11 is not attracted it is not mandatory to direct deposit half of the amount involved. However, it cannot be held that the Tribunal is without authority to impose appropriate condition having regard to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the case on hand, the Tribunal below in exercise of such discretion granted interim suspension subject to furnishing security to 50% of the surcharge amount. The said condition imposed by the Tribunal below, cannot be held to be unreasonable or onerous warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 28-07-2008 KLP