IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14276 of 2007 Between: 1 A.Padma Latha W/o.A.Laxminarayana R/o.flat No.101, F.Block,Highrise Apts., Lower Tank Bund, Secunderabad 2 M.N.Raju S/o.M.S.Sagar Rao Flat No.302,B Blcok, Highrise Apts Lower Tank Bund, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The AP Co-operative Tribunal,Hyderabad,Nampally rep.by its Secretary 2 The Deputy Registrar/Officer on Special Duty the AP State Co-operative bank Ltd., Troop Bazar,Hyderabad 3 AP State Co-operative Bank Ltd., rep.by its Dy.General Manager, (IF) Troop Bazar,Hyderabad 4 M/s.Blue Gold Maritech (Intl) Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director Sri K.L.Kishore, S/o.Ramanadham H.No.8-3-320, Yellareddugyda, Hyderabad-500783 5 K.L.Kishore S/o.Ramanadham H.no.8-3-320/12, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad-500073 6 M.Venkateswara Rao S/o.M.Ravindranath Chowdary Kaikalur-521333, Krishna 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 quash the order dated 22.3.2007 in CTA.No.69/2006 passed by the AP Co-op. Tribunal, Hyderabad by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY FOR R21.09.07,VAK-3 The Court made the following : ORDER: The ﬁrst petitioner is said to be the owner of plot No.180 admeasuring 200 square yards in survey Nos.143, 144, 146, 147, 148 and 149 situated at Hafeezpet, Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy District. She states that she purchased the same from M/s Deepthisri Cooperatie House Building Society, through sale deed, dated 23.01.1987. It is stated that she has since sold the plot in favour of the second petitioner, on 18.02.1999. The third respondent initiated proceedings under Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the second respondent herein. The same was taken as case No.ARC/2/2001-R.1. It was pleaded that M/s Blue Gold Maritech (Intl) Ltd, the fourth respondent herein, had availed loan from the third respondent and for repayment thereof, the ﬁrst petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 have joined as sureties. Alleging that the original loanee committed default, a prayer was made for issuance of recovery certiﬁcate. Through order, dated 19.04.2003, the second respondent issued a recovery certiﬁcate for a sum of Rs.5,68,39,452/-, against the respondents in the A.R.C. Alleging that she was not put on notice in the proceedings before the second respondent, the ﬁrst petitioner ﬁled C.T.A.No.69 of 2006 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the ﬁrst respondent herein, along with three other appellants, against the recovery certiﬁcate. The Tribunal dismissed the C.T.A.No.69 of 2006 through order, dated 22.03.2007. Hence, this Writ Petition. The ﬁrst petitioner contends that though an observation was made in the order passed by the second respondent that notice upon her was served in person, the record clearly discloses that the alleged service was upon the fourth respondent, and despite the same, the Appellate Tribunal did not intervene. It is urged that the first petitioner never created any mortgage in favour of the third respondent. A detailed counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the third respondent. It is stated that the documents in relation to the property in question were deposited with them and a mortgage was created. It is alleged that the notice was served at the same address that was furnished by the first petitioner, in various proceedings. Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the third respondent, who alone contested the matter. In the proceedings before the third respondent, the ﬁrst petitioner and several others were set ex parte. The ﬁrst petitioner ﬁgured as respondent No.15. It was observed that respondents 6, 9 and 15 therein were served personally. The ﬁrst petitioner states that she never received any notice. She ﬁled copy of the notice said to have been issued to her and others, in the proceedings under Section 71 of the Act. The endorsement thereon discloses that the notice addressed to the ﬁrst petitioner was received by M/s Blue Gold Maritech (Intl) Ltd. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as a personal service upon the ﬁrst petitioner. Whatever may have been the justiﬁcation for the second respondent in proceeding with the matter by treating the ﬁrst petitioner as ex parte, when a speciﬁc plea was raised before the Tribunal, it ought to have examined the matter, in detail. Except making a reference to the method of service undertaken by the second respondent, the Tribunal did not take the trouble of examining whether there was eﬀective service of notice on the first petitioner. The ﬁrst petitioner cannot be expected to prove negative before the Tribunal. It was for the third respondent to show the manner in which the service of notice, as required under law was eﬀected on the ﬁrst petitioner. Such an exercise was not undertaken. On this short ground, the orders passed against the ﬁrst petitioner are liable to be set aside. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the recovery certiﬁcate issued in case No.ARC/2/2001-R.1, dated 19.04.2003, insofar as it relates to the ﬁrst petitioner, is set aside. The second respondent shall enquire into the matter limited to the participation of the ﬁrst petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months, duly giving opportunity to the concerned parties. It is directed that the petitioners shall not alienate the property in question, till the second respondent disposes of the proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.03.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ