IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1209 OF 2009 Dt.29.10.2009 Between: Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd., Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam Rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director … Appellant And A.P. Cooperative Tribunal Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Registrar and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1209 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed against order dt.18.8.2009 in Writ Petition No.7833 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and directed respondent No.1 to dispose of O.A. No.27 of 2008 filed by respondent No.2 on merits. At the instance of the appellant, a dispute was referred to respondent No.3 for adjudication under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). Pending the said dispute, the appellant filed an application seeking impleadment of respondent No.2 as a party to the dispute. Respondent No.3 allowed the said application, which was questioned by respondent No.2 in O.A.No.27 of 2008. In the said O.A., the appellant raised a preliminary objection by way of filing a Memo. After hearing both sides, respondent No.1- Tribunal rejected the preliminary objections and held that the appeal was maintainable. Questioning the said order, the appellant filed W.P. No.7833 of 2009 which, as stated above, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. At the hearing, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that under Section 76 of the Act, it is only the final decision made by the Arbitrator that was amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of respondent No.1 – Tribunal and not an interlocutory order passed by the subordinate authority. Having carefully examined the provisions of Sections 62(4) and 76 of the Act, we are of the opinion that an aggrieved party can file an appeal under Section 76 of the Act not only against a final decision made, but also against any interlocutory order passed pending final decision on the dispute. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of respondent No.1 in holding that the appeal filed by respondent No.2 was maintainable. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2521 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29.10.2009 bnr