IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7362 of 2006 Between: A.Satyanarayana S/o.LateA.Naganna R/o.Plot No.A/49, J.J.Nagar colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M/s.Muthyalarao Cooperative Housing Society Limited rep.by its President, Sri Anjaiah having its office at J.J.Nagar, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad 2 The Co-operative Sub-Registrar-cum-Arbitration office of the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad East Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 3 The Andhra Pradesh, Co-operative Tribunal, rep.by its chairman office, 7th floor, Chandra vihar, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENS 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 writ order or direction more to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Certiorari calling the records in ARc 22 of 1999 and CTA 59 of 2001 from the respondent No.2&3and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER:- Heard Sri K.Mohan, the leaned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri D.V.Bhadram and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, the learned Counsel representing the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed for Writ, Order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling the records in ARC.22/99 and CTA 59/2001 from respondents 2 and 3 and quash the same and pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that the present President Sri R.Anjaiah had contested elections and became President in the year 1999 and got issued a notice alleging that the petitioner is not a member of the Society and the said notice was suitably replied. It is also stated that subsequently the society approached the 2nd respondent and filed ARC.22/99 seeking the relief declaring that the petitioner is not a member of the society and after filing of the said ARC on receipt of summons, the petitioner had filed a counter inter alia denying the allegation and also he had contested that no resolution was passed by the society to enable the society to file case and the respondent No.2 had decided the point against the petitioner and when he asked the copy of the order, the learned Arbitrator furnished the copy of the said order wherein the date of order was mentioned as 30-12-2000, and in the said order, the respondent No.2 had held that the Managing Committee meeting is valid, and that the said finding was contrary to record, as the DLCO had given finding that the signature of one J.Rajeswara Rao was forged and the said fact established that there was no quorum in the alleged meeting and that the respondent No.1 had no authority to initiate the proceedings. Further it is stated that R.2 without giving any opportunity passed an order on 12-1-2000 holding that the petitioner was not a member of the society and directed the respondent No.2 society to initiate necessary action to remove him from the membership. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner pfd appeal before the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the appellate Tribunal without considering the facts, confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent and hence the present Writ Petition had been filed. The grounds in detail had been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the petitioner herein deliberately did not file relevant pages of membership Register where he managed to insert his name in the place of his wife’s name. These papers were filed by this respondent along with dispute ARC No.22/99. The petitioner had filed other papers filed along with the said dispute but deliberately avoided to file the relevant pages in Membership Register which would amply establish the mischief played by the petitioner to become a member of the Society and to grab the management of the society by getting coopted as President of the Society by backdoor and illegal methods. It is also stated that this respondent got issued a legal legal notice dt.14-7-99 to the petitioner which was got replied by him in not suitably but simply denying the contents therein. It is true that the Society filed a dispute ARC No.22/99-G before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Divisional Coop. Officer, Hyderabad (East) Division seeking a declaration that the petitioner got himself a member in the Society by tampering the Membership Register by striking the name of his wife to grab the power in the society. Certain facts with regard to proceedings of ARC.No.22/99 also had been furnished, which are as hereunder:- a) The Society filed the dispute before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad (East) Division on 16-1-99. b) The Deputy Registrar, Hyderabad (E) Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad referred the dispute ARC.No.22/99 to Smt.A.Padma Coop. Sub-Registrar (Office) on 10-12-99. c) Summons were issued and the petitioner herein filed his counter on 18-2-2000 without any preliminary objection and without any iota of proof of his membership in the Society. d) The Society filed a reply to the said counter on 18-3-2000 filed by the petitioner. e) The petitioner herein i.e., the respondent in ARC.No.22/99 filed a memo dt.1-5-2000 to change the Arbitrator making allegations against the Arbitrator. f) Accordingly, another Arbitrator was appointed on 17-5-2000. g) The petitioner filed a memo dt.21-10-2000 questioning the authority of the Society in filing the dispute ARC.No.22/99. h) The Arbitrator directed the Society to furnish original Minutes Book and accordingly original Minutes Book was produced on 4-11-2000 and the same was perused by the respondent- appellant and the learned Arbitrator held that the meeting dt.6-9- 98 through which it was resolved to file dispute before the 2nd respondent was in order as held by the DR/DLCO, Hyderabad (East) after due enquiry. The learned Arbitrator has perused all the related files in respect of the allegation (as recorded in the impugned order at page No.6). i) The ARC.No.22/99 was posted finally for arguments on 16-12- 2000. The Society concluded arguments and the Counsel for the petitioner herein sought for time. The matter was adjourned to 23-12-2000 for the arguments of the petitioner’s Counsel. j) The Counsel for respondent in ARC i.e., the petitioner herein again on 23-12-2000 sought for adjournment on the pretext that he has requested the appointing authority to change the Arbitrator which request was not conceded to. This is the 2nd time when the respondent in ARC requested for change of the Arbitrator. k) The case was however posted to 30-12-2000 to provide final opportunity and the respondent again requested for another adjournment which was not considered by the 2nd respondent and the case was disposed of. It is however stated that from the above facts, it can be gauged by this Court that the petitioner herein was only interested in some how dragging on the matter by filing even petitions against the successive Arbitrator for changing them on the flimsy and false grounds. The contention that the Arbitrator has decided the preliminary issued on 30- 12-2000 and on the same day reserved the matter for ordersis a blatant lie. Perusal of the record would go to show that the 2nd respondent decided the preliminary issue on 16-11-2000 and thereafter posted the matter for arguments and the petitioner though was given opportunity three times thereafter, did not chose to advance his arguments. The decision thereof was given in writing by the 2nd respondent herein on the demand of the petitioner on 20-12-2000 clearly stating that it was declared on 16-11-2000 that the objection of the Counsel for the respondent i.e., the petitioner herein was not allowed. The petitioner is aware of the decision of 16-11-2000 and thereafter sought time thrice on some pretext or other including for change of Arbitrator. It is also averred that in response to the contention that the finding of the 2nd respondent with regard to the validity of the meeting is contrary to record is totally false since the Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies / DLCO (East), after thorough enquiry through proceedings Rc.No.1308/99/H, dt.10-4-2000 held that the meeting dt.6-9-98 was in order and that the signature of one Sri J.Rajeswar Rao was not forged. The complaint of Sri J.Rajeswar Rao in FIR No.175/2001 was made on 28-6-2001 i.e.,subsequent to passing of Award ARC.No.22/99 dt.12-1-2001 and also subsequent to filing of an appeal before the 3rd respondent herein. 5. It is further stated that subsequently after change of the DR/DLCO the disgruntled members of the Society got reopened the matter by getting a report from the Forensic Science Lab and filed a Criminal Case in collusion with new authority, which is pending adjudication. It is relevant to mention herein that the original document where the forgery was alleged is not being brought in record by the then DR/DLCO to establish the Charge. The then DR/DLCO before X MM, Neredmet deposed that he gave the original Minutes Book in which forgery was attributed to the police whereas the Police authorities produced only a letter forwarding Xerox copies 3 pages in Minutes Book. However, before the Police, he gave a statement that the said Minute Book was retained by the Department in connection with enquiry and that he would produce before the Court as and when called for. As of now, it is not being produced before the Court. The reason is obvious that the charge is frivolous. The grounds raised also had been specifically answered. The 1st respondent had given ample opportunity and the appellant also filed his counter but had not come forward to advance arguments or adduce evidence of his membership, if any, and thus he is estopped from claiming that the Award was passed without affording opportunity to him. 6. This Court had gone through the order under challenge. The A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad in C.T.A.No.59/2001 having formulated the point for consideration at para 5, recorded the contentions and further recorded reasons in detail at paras 8 and 9 and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Predominantly, this controversy is a question of fact. Even otherwise, the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad observed at paras 8 and 9 as hereunder:- “Perusd the records. The Co-operative Sub- Registrar/Inspecting Officer issued summons on 10-6-91 to 62 members of the Society. The name of Kala Bai, wife of the appellant is mentioned at Serial No.1 among the 62 members to whom summons were issued. A list of members was submitted to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri, by the then President of the Society. Wherein the name of Kamala Bai was shown as a member at serial No.49. The report of the Inspecting Officer indicates that in pursuance of the summons issued by the Inspecting Officer, Kamala Bai appeared before him as a member and she represented before him that she has been member of the society since 12-6-68 and the same is incorporated in the report. Then the Divisional Cooperative Officer who conducted inspection of the Society submitted his report on 17-2-96. In his report, he has categorically mentioned that the membership register was tampered at serial No.49 and the name of A.Kamala Bai was struck off and the name of A.Satyanarayana was shown as a member in a fraudulent manner. A perusal of the membership register would manifest that at serial No.48 the name of Smt.A.Kamala Bai was written and name of A.Satyanarayana was shown as husband of Kamala Bai. Subsequently the words and figures “48. Smt.Kamala Bai Wife” were struck off. Serial No.49 were subsequently written to make believe that the appellant A.Satyanarayana, S/o.A.Naganna was admitted as a member of the Society at serial No.48. The age 44 years was erased and 49 years was subsequently written. The signature of A.Satyanarayana appears to have been subsequently affixed as the writings appears to be fresh when compared with the writings such as name of the member, occupation, address, date of membership etc. It clearly goes to show that Kamala Bai, wife of the appellant was originally admitted as a member at serial No.48 on 39- 8-78. Subsequently, A.Satyanarayana, appellant was added as a member by tampering the admission register. This view is lent support from the fact that summons were issued to A.Kamala Bai on 10-6-91 by Coop.Sub- Registrar/Inspecting Officer. The Managing Committee in its resolution dt.17-2-91 has resolved to admit the appellant and Sri D.Narayana as member and the same is written in the bottom lines. A careful observation of the same, it would manifest that the resolution resolving the admission of the appellant was snot recorded during the Managing Committee meeting and it was subsequently entered the appellant as member of the Society. The same Committee members have signed in the meeting, signed a list of members on 12-4-91. Wherein the name of the appellant was not recorded as a member but Smt.Kamala Bai was shown as a member. The contention of the appellant that he was elected as President by the Managing Committee on 19-5-91 and he was elected as President of the Society on 4-7-94 and his name was entered in the Voter’s List by the Election Officer for which the elections were held on 2-4-97 and the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, confirmed the same on 2-5-92 is not helpful to the appellant. The name of the appellant was entered in the voters list on the basis of tampered entries in the membership register when once it is held that the name of the appellant was entered by tampering the membership admission register in place of his wife’s name and when there is no evidence to show that the name of wife of the appellant Kamalabai is not found place elsewhere in the admission register any amount of other evidence is not a substitute to show that the appellant is a member of the Society as contended by him. The learned Arbitrator as discussed at length about the authority of the 1st respondent Society to file arbitration case against the appellant. The Award passed by the Arbitrator is a reasoned Award and it is based on sound reasoning. I do not find any reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Arbitrator and as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.” 7. In the light of the reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal below, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there is no illegality. No doubt, certain submissions were made that some additional material had been placed before the Tribunal. Even if the additional material to be entertained, this Court is of the considered opinion that this would not alter the situation in any way since predominantly this is a question of fact and concurrent findings had been recorded in this regard. Hence, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed with costs. _____________________ Justice P.S. Narayana September, 2009 smr