IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 5891 of 2006 Between: M/s. Lakshmi Constructions, Rep by its - Managing Partner K.V.Lakshmi, W/o.K.V.Narasimha Rao, R/o.Plot Nos.155/C, 156E/F, Phase-II, Industrial Estate, Cherlapally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/ Divisional- Cooperative Officer, Golkonda, Hyderabad. 2 The Sravya Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, (Under Liquidiation), Hyderabad. .....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, to declare the action of the respondents No.1 in entertaining the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent in A.R.C.No.92/03/G and issuing the notice dt.13-2-2006 demanding to pay the loan amount due to the 2nd respondent without any jurisdiction as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Judgment of the Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.1754/2004 and batch dt.5-7-2005 and consequently set aside the notice dt.13-2-2006, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner : K.ARUNA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.5891 OF 2006 ORDER ; This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent - Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in entertaining the proceedings in A.R.C.No.92/03/G for recovery of the loan amounts allegedly due from the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. While placing reliance upon a decision of a Larger Bench of this Court, it is contended by the petitioner that the 1st respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings in view of the statutory bar under Sections 18 & 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, ‘RDB Act, 1993’). The above issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in GREATER BOMBAY CO.OP. BANK LTD. v. UNITED YARN TEX (P) LTD.[1] and after discussing the relevant provisions it was held that “Co- operative Banks” established under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 transacting the business of Bank, do not fall within the meaning of “Banking Company” as defined under Section 5 (c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Accordingly, it was concluded by the Apex Court that the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are not applicable to the recovery of dues by the cooperatives from their members. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision, the contention raised by the petitioner is untenable and therefore the writ petition hereby dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the statutory remedy of appeal if so advised. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.06.2008 gbs [1] (2007) 6 SCC 236