IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25801 of 2008 Between: R. Venkat Rao, S/o. Late R Rama Swamy, R/o. H.No. B5/F9 LIG, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Mukharamjaahi Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar/Divisional Co-oprative Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Sajjanna Co-operative Housing Society Limited, H.No. 8-2- 684/C/F/C, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3 Raghuram Reddy, H.No. 8-2-684/C/F/C, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 4 K. Madan Mohan Redy, President of Sajjanna Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.35, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order dated 10- 11-2008 passed by the Respondent No.1 in I.A.No. 1 of 2008, dated 10- 11-2008, as illegal and the same may be set side and a direction may be issued to Respondent No.1 to implead the affected parties by allowing I.A 1 of 2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.V.DURGA PRASAD GP FOR CO-OPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25801 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by respondent No.1-Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar/Divisional Co-operative Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.1 of 2008 in ARC.No.9 of 2008, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the petitioner, claiming to be the member of the 2nd respondent-Sajjanna Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, filed ARC.No.9 of 2008, under Section 61 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, before the 1st respondent, seeking cancellation of the allotment of plots to various persons by the 2nd respondent Society illegally and to takeover the management of the said Society and also to consider his case for allotment of plot by the Society. In the said ARC, the respondents therein/respondents 2 to 4 herein filed a counter-affidavit denying the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, pending the said ARC, the petitioner filed the present I.A. being I.A.No.1 of 2008 seeking to implead as many as 20 persons purported to be the members of the Society in the arbitration proceedings on the ground that they are necessary and proper parties to be impleaded as party respondents, and the 1st respondent dismissed the said I.A., by order dated 10.11.2008. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent, without issuing notice to the persons sought to be impleaded and without hearing them, passed the impugned order. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, strenuously contended that the very arbitration proceedings raised by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is not maintainable. That apart, the 1st respondent, after furnishing detailed reasons, dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner and, as such, the same cannot be challenged before this Court. Even otherwise, in this writ petition also, the petitioner is supposed to implead the persons whom he sought to be impleaded in the proceedings before the 1st respondent and that unless the said persons are impleaded in this writ petition, the writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Though certain objections were raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as regards the maintainability of the very arbitration proceedings as well as the writ petition, from a perusal of the entire material on record, the simple question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the 1st respondent has rightly dismissed the I.A., without issuing notice to the persons sought to be impleaded and without hearing them. Admittedly, no notice of any kind was issued to the persons sought to be impleaded in the proceedings before the 1st respondent as also they were not given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned in this writ petition. As such, and in order to avoid the delay and multiplicity of litigation, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in I.A.No.1 of 2008 in ARC No.9 of 2008 and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent to consider it afresh, after issuing notices to all the persons sought to be impleaded in the said I.A., and pass fresh orders. However, this order does not preclude the 1st respondent in deciding the aspect of the very maintainability of the arbitration proceedings and the implead party petition. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 21.04.2009 v v