IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20656 of 2008 Between: Sri Sainath Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Regd. TBC.No.344 , Plot No.19,Bahadurpally village, Bowrampet Post, Quthbullapur Mandal Ranga Reddy District, rep.by its Secretary Sri N.Papa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The AP Cooperative Tribunal, At Chandra vihar Building, M.J.road, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer Hyderabad (West) Division, Ranga Reddy District 3 K.Jhansi Laxmi W/o.K.M.K.Neelaratna R/o.H.No.5-3-210,Shantinagar Kukatpally, Hyderabad 4 C.Aruna Reddy W/o.C.Pradeed Reddy R/o.Plot No.99, Vivekanandanagar colony Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72 .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 3.4.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CTA.No.138 of 2008 whereby setting aside the Award passed by the 2nd respondent in ARC.No.375/2001-D dated 29.8.2001 as illegal, improper perverse, and arbitrary, besides being contrary to the provisions of the AP Cooperative Societies Act and Rules and also Bye-laws of the petitioner society . Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SANKARAYYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20656 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a Cooperative Society and the fourth respondent is its member. She was allotted plot bearing No.557 from out of a layout in the land located at Bahadurpally Village, Ranga Reddy District. Alleging that the fourth respondent is due a sum of Rs.28,000/- towards development charges, the petitioner-society approached the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the second respondent herein, under Section 61 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). The second respondent passed an ex parte award, dated 29.08.2001, not only calling upon the fourth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.28,000/- on or before 30.11.2001, but also directing the petitioner-society to cancel the registration of the plot and to allot the same to others, in the waiting list. In view of the default committed by the fourth respondent in paying the amount, the petitioner- society is said to have allotted the plot to the third respondent, after cancelling the registration of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent ﬁled C.T.A.No.138 of 2007 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, through its judgment, dated 03.04.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner-society approached the second respondent under Section 61 of the Act with a prayer to pass an award for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,000/-. The record discloses that the summons issued to the fourth respondent were not returned served and on the postal covers, it was endorsed that he left from the address. Therefore, he was set ex parte. The ex parte award, dated 29.08.2001, passed by the second respondent reads as under: “Smt. C.Aruna Reddy is called upon to pay an amount of Rs.28,000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand only) on or before 30.11.2001. Failing which the society is directed to cancel the registration and allot the same to waiting list members.” From a perusal of this, it is clearly evident that the second respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Act. Even assuming that the claim of the petitioner-society against the fourth respondent was proved, at the most, an award for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,000/- could have ensued. The second respondent, however, proceeded to direct the petitioner-society to cancel the registration in favour of the fourth respondent and to allot the resultant plot to others. That was not even the prayer of the petitioner-society nor it could have constituted any adjudication under Section 61 of the Act. The Tribunal has commented upon the award passed by the second respondent and has correctly set aside the same. The reasons furnished by the Tribunal are proper, though it could have maintained some restraint in making comments as to the conduct of the second respondent. This Court does not ﬁnd any basis to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in case the fourth respondent is still due any amount to the petitioner-society, it shall always open to it to recover the same, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 23.09.2008. JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20656 of 2008 Date: 23.09.2008 JSU