IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19730 of 2008 Between: 1 Nasina Gangadharam S/o.late Nasina Ramanaiah R/o.D.No.11-478, Mahalakshmamma Temple Street, Gamallapalem, Gudur, Nellore District. 2 Nasina Dayakar S/o.Nasina Bhaskar R/o.Gamallapalem, Gudur, Nellore District. 3 Mannem Jothsna D/o.Nasina Bhaskar R/o.Gamallapalem, Gudur, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary Cooperative Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudur, Nellore District. 3 The Assistant Registrar/Sub-Divisional Coop. Officer-cum- Sale Officer, Sunnampatti Street, Narsingaraopet, Gudur, Nellore District. 4 The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Chillakur, Rep. by its Secretary, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 5 Nasina Bhaskar S/o.Late Nasina Ramanaiah R/o.Gamallapalem, Gudur, Nellore District. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order dated 5.6.2007 passed in O.P.No.1/2006 in E.P.No.144/2006-B by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set-aside the same, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: Proceedings under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) are said to have been initiated against the ﬁfth respondent, on behalf of the fourth respondent-society, before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudur, Nellore District, the second respondent herein. An item of immovable property was attached. The father of the ﬁfth respondent, by name Sri Nasina Ramanaiah, raised an objection, before the Assistant Registrar/Sub-Divisional Cooperative Oﬃcer-cum-Sale Oﬃcer, the third respondent herein, that the attached property belongs to him. Through the order, dated 05.06.2007, the third respondent rejected the claim. It is represented that two days earlier thereto, Nasina Ramanaiah died. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the sons and the third petitioner is his daughter. They challenge the order, dated 05.06.2007, passed by the third respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The objection raised by the father of the petitioners was almost in the form of a claim petition under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. Rule 51(21)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, is akin to the said provision. Though a semblance of discussion was undertaken by the third respondent, it was almost summary in nature. The petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 76 of the Act before the Cooperative Tribunal. This Court is of the view that the petitioners can not only put forward their contentions, but also adduce evidence, before the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal against the impugned order. To protect their interest, the operation of the impugned order is stayed for a period of three (3) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.09.2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) kdl