IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:13981 of 2001 Between: 1 M/s Yamuna Printers Rep by its Priprietor Sri D.Bheem Rao D.No.35-335, beside S.B.I. Shapur Nagar , Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R.District 2 D.Bheem Rao S/o Hanumantha Rao 8-3-318/6/4 Engineers colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. 3 D.Chitralekha W/o D.Bheema Rao 8-3-318/6/4 Engineers colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Managing Director, Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2 The Co-operative Sub-Registrar/Arbitraror, Officer of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, City Circle, Near Exhibition Grounds, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. SASHIDHAR REDDY FOR MR.Y.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.2:AGP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash award No.ARC/1269/98, dated 23.12.1998 passed by respondent No.2 and judgment, dated 11.05.2001, whereby the said award was conﬁrmed by the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in CTA No.34 of 1999. Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 for recovery of the amounts received by the petitioners under term loan and towards overdraft facilities from the Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Malakpet, Hyderabad (for short ‘the bank’). The said proceedings ended with passing of award, dated 23.12.1998 by respondent No.2. The said award was questioned by the petitioners before the Tribunal by way of CTA No.34 of 1999. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal by judgment, dated 11.05.2001. Both the award and the judgment are assailed in this writ petition. Sri Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners made strenuous eﬀorts to convince this Court that the award passed by respondent No.2 was in violation of principles of natural justice. He contended that the petitioners received notices ﬁxing the hearing of the case for 17.12.1998, only on 16.12.1998 and that as the petitioners did not have adequate time, they instructed their counsel Sri Mohan Rao and Company to appear before respondent No.2 on their behalf and accordingly, Sri Shantappa, Advocate appeared before respondent No.2 and requested her to grant time. The learned counsel argued that on the said request, respondent No.2 orally informed the said Shantappa that the case will be called on 28.12.1998 but later, the petitioners learnt that the case was called on 23.12.1998 and an award was passed on the said date. In the award passed by respondent No.2, she stated that summons were served on the petitioners ﬁxing 17.12.1998 as the date of hearing; that neither the principal borrowers nor the other respondents have attended the hearing on the said date and that the case was adjourned to 21.12.1998 to give another chance to the petitioners and others. It is further stated by her that on the next date of hearing, namely, 21.12.1998, no representation was made on behalf of the petitioners, while the learned counsel for the bank was present both on 17.12.1998 and 21.12.1998 and that she took serious view for the absence of the petitioners and after verification of the documents, she passed the award. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal, took note of the above mentioned facts contained in the award and gave a ﬁnding that not only that the petitioners committed default in repayment of the loan amounts, but also they have avoided participating in the proceedings before respondent No.2. On that premise, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that the petitioners failed to establish that they were represented by their counsel either on 17.12.1998 or on 21.12.1998 to which date the case was adjourned. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that their counsel ﬁled any vakalath or memo of appearance on their behalf on 17.12.1998 or any other subsequent date. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the learned counsel, who is stated to have appeared before respondent No.2 on 17.12.1998 ﬁled his aﬃdavit before the Tribunal speaking to the fact of his appearance before respondent No.2 on the said date. In the absence of any material whatsoever coming forth from the petitioners to establish that their counsel represented them on 17.12.1998, this Court is not prepared to believe the ipsi dixit of the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal in rejecting the contention of the petitioners that they were denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by respondent No.2 before passing the award. No other contention is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. On the premises as above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 11.07.2001 is vacated and WPMP.No.17493 of 2001 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni