IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 26206 of 2008 Between: 1 Late A. Kannabiran (died) as per L.R.s R/o.1-11-252/49, Motilal Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2 A.K. Raghavan S/o. Late A. Kannabiran R/o.1-11-252/49, Motilal Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 A. Sarswathi D/o. Late A. Kannabiran R/o.1-11-252/49, Motilal Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 4 A. Rajya Lakshmi D/o. Late A. Kannabiran R/o.1-11-252/49, Motilal Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 5 A.K. Ramesh S/o. Late A. Kannabiran R/o.1-11-252/49, Motilal Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 6 A. Sarada Devi W/o. Late A. Kannabiran R/o.1-11-252/49, Motilal Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Prudential Cooperative Bank Ltd., Rastrapathi Road, Secunderabad, A.P. Through its Liquidator. 2 The Cooperative Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.A.No.542 of 2007 in O.P.No.695 of 2001, dt.7.11.2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioners have, admittedly, taken loans from the first respondent-Bank. The first respondent filed OP before the second respondent for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioners. The petitioners’ case, in a nut shell, is that, while they had, indeed, borrowed from the first respondent, a major chunk thereof was taken by the then Managing Director of the first respondent-Bank. They, therefore, thought it fit to file an application to implead the then Managing Director of the first respondent-Bank as a party in the proceedings before the second respondent. The second respondent, by its order dated 07-11-2008, dismissed the said application holding that the Managing Director was not a necessary party to the proceedings before it. The complaint as, forcefully, put across by Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the order of the second respondent dated 07-11-2008 is a non-speaking order and is bereft of reasons and that indeed seems to be the case. It is well settled law that principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him by non-observance of principles of natural justice (SYNDICATE BANK vs. VENKATESH GURURAO KURATI :: AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 3542; and STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. S. K. SHARMA :: AIR 1996 SC 1669). All that the Courts have to see is whether the non-observance of any of these principles in a given case is likely to have resulted in deflecting the course of justice. (STATE OF U.P. vs. OM PRAKASH GUPTA :: AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 679). Violation of principles of natural justice would not, by itself, necessitate exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, having admittedly borrowed from the first respondent-Bank, cannot avoid liability on the specious plea that they had paid a major chunk thereof to the then Managing Director of the first respondent-Bank. The first respondent- Bank is in no way concerned with the action of the petitioners in giving a portion of the loans received by them to the then Managing Director of the first respondent and, therefore, the said Managing Director has been rightly held not to be a necessary party in the proceedings before the second respondent. If, as contended by the petitioners, the allegation that the then Managing Director of the first respondent-Bank had taken away a major chunk of the loan is true, it is always open to them to file a suit against him for recovery of the amount or initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against him. That does not, however, justify their seeking to array the Managing Director as a respondent in the OP filed by them before the second respondent- Tribunal and avoid liability of repayment of the amounts borrowed by them from the first respondent–Bank . While the Tribunal should certainly have assigned reasons in this regard, that, by itself, would not justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it is well settled that interference would only be justified where manifest injustice would otherwise ensue or where large public interest would so require. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 5th December 2008 CVRK