IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16253 of 2008 Between: Mrs.Uma Baswa Raju W/o.Jajimi Baswa Raju The Veerashaiva Cooperative Urban bank Ltd., Hyderabad R/o.F.No.403,Lakshmi Apartments, SBH 'C' Colony Saidabad, Hyderabad , AP ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Divisonal Cooperative Officer,Charminar Division, Hyderabad 2 The Veerashaiva Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.,Hyderabad Regd.No.TA.1429/97 (Since merged with Agrasen Coop Urban Bank Ltd), 16-2-701/6/9,Opp:Sri Krupa Market Malakpet,Hyderabad-500036, AP 3 Agrasen Cooperative Urban Bank ltd.,R.No.TA 1439 H.No.15-2-391/392/1, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad-500012, Rep.by its Chairman 4 Sri Mohd.Anwarulla S/o.Not known Borrower of the 2nd respondent 5 SriM.A.Khaleemulla Shabbir S/o.Not known Borrower of the 2nd respondent 6 Sri M.Ravindranath S/o.late Sri M.Basappa LR of Ex Chairman of the 2nd respondent Bank 7 Sri M.Prakashnath S/o.Late Sri M.Basappa LR of Ex Chairman of the 2nd respondent Bank 8 Sri Venkateswarlu S/o.Not knonw Ex.Director of 2nd respondent Bank 9 Sri D.Uma Maheswar Rao S/o.Late D.Linga Murthy Ex.Direct of 2nd respondent Bank 10 Sri G.C.Basweshwar S/o.Not knonw Ex.Director of 2nd Respondent Bank 11 Dr.Ramesh Babu S/o.Not knonw Ex.Director of 2nd Respondent Bank 12 Sri G.Swayam Prakash S/o.Not knonw Ex.Director of 2nd Respondent Bank 13 Sri C.Balakrishna S/o.Not knonw Ex.Director of 2nd Respondent Bank 14 Sri Chandra Sekhar Konda S/o.Veerappa Konda Ex.Director of 2nd Respondent Bank 15 Smt.Meenakshi A Patil W/o.Not known Ex.Director of 2nd Respondent Bank 16 Smt.Padmaja Patil W/o.Not known Ex.Director of 2nd Respondent Bank 17 Sri V.S.Murthy S/o.Not known Ex.CEO, of the 2nd respondent Bank 18 Sri Vijayarangam S/o.Not known Valuer, Valuer of the 2nd respondent Bank (4th to 18th respondents are all resident of 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 a writ order or orders more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders dated 16.7.2008 of the Honourable AP Cooperative Tribunal Hyderabad passed in IA.No.584/08 under Rule 11 of the AP Cooperative Tribunal (Procedure )Rules,1994, as without jurisdiction illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rule 12 of the AP Coop.Tribunal (Procedure ) Rules,1994 and hence modify the same by suspending the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.2166/O3UB/A, dated 30.4.2008 without insisting for furnishing of security to 50% of the Surcharge amount. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.BHADRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16253 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order passed by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 16-07-2008 in I.A.No.584 of 2008 in CTA.No.83 of 2008 under which the interim suspension of the surcharge proceedings dated 30-04-2008 were granted subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishing security of 50% of the surcharge amount within one month. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that since it is not a case of misappropriation of the amounts or sanction of benami loans, the condition imposed by the Rule 11 of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 is not applicable and therefore, Tribunal below committed an error in granting interim suspension subject to furnishing of security of 50% of the surcharge amount. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and having perused the material on record, I do not ﬁnd any substance in the said contention. It is true that in cases to which Rule 11 is not attracted it is not mandatory to direct deposit half of the amount involved. However, it cannot be held that the Tribunal is without authority to impose appropriate condition having regard to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the case on hand, the Tribunal below in exercise of such discretion granted interim suspension subject to furnishing security to 50% of the surcharge amount. The said condition imposed by the Tribunal below, cannot be held to be unreasonable or onerous warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 28-07-2008 KLP