HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5148 of 2009 ORDER: The order of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.2 of 2009 in I.A.No.786 of 2008 in CTA No.129 of 2008 and in I.A.No.3 of 2009 in CTA No.129 of 2008 dated 27.2.2009, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners herein filed C.T.A.No.129 of 2008 before the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad questioning the order of the 3rd respondent dated 22.11.2008 disqualifying them, as Managing Committee members of the 4th respondent society, under Section 21(1)(c) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Pending disposal of the appeal in C.T.A.No.129 of 2008, the Cooperative Tribunal, passed an interim order suspending the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. While matters stood thus respondents 5 to 8 herein filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2009 in C.T.A.No.129 of 2008 seeking that they be impleaded as respondents 4 to 7 in C.T.A.No.129 of 2008. They contended that they had issued a legal notice to the official respondents calling upon them to disqualify the petitioners as Managing Committee members of the Society and the order of the 3rd respondent, disqualifying the petitioners, was passed at their behest. The petitioners contested the said I.As contending that respondents 5 to 8 herein were not necessary parties to the appeal; and, since the Society consisted of 400 to 500 members, impleading respondents 5 to 8 herein would result in other members of the Society filing petitions to implead themselves as respondents in the appeal. In the order, under challenge in this writ petition, the Tribunal noted that respondents 5 to 8 herein had made several representations resulting in an enquiry being held against the petitioners herein and in orders being passed disqualifying them from continuing as members of the Managing Committee of the Society. The Tribunal observed that the factum of respondents 5 to 8 herein being members of the Society was not in dispute; respondents 5 to 8 herein had filed an application seeking appropriate action being taken against the petitioners herein; an enquiry was conducted thereupon; orders were passed on their petition; and hence respondents 5 to 8 herein were necessary parties to the proceedings. The Tribunal further observed that arraying them as respondents in the appeal would cause no prejudice to the petitioners herein as they would have an opportunity of filing their rejoinder. The Tribunal held that, since the orders under challenge before it were passed on the representation of respondents 5 to 8, it could not be said that they were not necessary parties and, for proper adjudication of the matter, they should be arrayed as parties to the proceedings. In allowing the I.A., and consequently impleading respondents 5 to 8 herein as respondents in the appeal in C.T.A.No.129 of 2008, the Tribunal has assigned valid reasons. It is not even the petitioners’ case that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in appeal over the discretion exercised by Tribunals in impleading parties as respondents more so when the petitioners have not shown as to how they are prejudiced thereby. The fact that respondents 5 to 8 had submitted representations against the petitioners herein resulting in an enquiry being held and their being disqualified from continuing as members of the Managing Committee of the Society is not disputed . The discretion exercised by the Tribunal, in arraying them as respondents in the appeal on the ground that it would enable proper adjudication of the dispute, cannot be lightly interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even if the petitioners’ contention that respondents 5 to 8 herein are not necessary parties to the appeal is presumed to have some force, it cannot be denied that respondents 5 to 8 are proper parties since it is at their behest that proceedings were initiated which eventually culminated in an order being passed disqualifying the petitioners as members of the managing committee of the respondent society. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners that, permitting respondents 5 to 6 to be impleaded, may well result in the other 400 to 500 members of the society also clamouring for being arrayed as respondents in the appeal, is without basis. The Tribunal has impleaded respondents 5 to 8 herein, as respondents in the appeal, not only because they were members of the Society but also for the reason that the entire proceedings resulting in the order, under challenge in the appeal, being passed was initiated by them. The order, under challenge in this writ petition, does not suffer from any error of law or infirmity of such magnitude as to necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 26-03-2010 asp