HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEALS NO :386 & 590 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: ( Per the Honourable Smt.Justice T . Meena Kumari) Though the matter is listed under interlocutory, both the Counsel agreed that the writ appeals could themselves be finally heard at this stage. The appellants in both the appeals are the writ petitioners. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order of the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 21.1.2000 in CTA No.44 of 1999. The parties in both the writ appeals are one and the same. However, the status of the parties will be referred to as arrayed in W.A.No.386 of 2002 for the sake of convenience. One M. Veerabhadrappa-2 nd respondent in WA No.386 of 2002 was a Commission agent with the petitioners for the purchase of ground-nut pods at the market yard, Yemmaganur during the year 1981. On the allegation of non-payment of commission for the service rendered, the 2nd respondent instituted a claim under Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act on 30.12.1987 and after due process of enquiry, the arbitrator passed an award as prayed for by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred CTA No.44 of 1999 before the Co-operative Tribunal. The tribunal partly modiﬁed the award of the arbitrator. Hence, against the conﬁrmation of the award, the petitioners ﬁled WP No.15546 of 2000 and against modification the agent filed WP No.14350 of 2001. On hearing the Counsel and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the provisions, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the petitioners that the claim of the 2nd respondent is beyond time. Insofar as the grievance regarding the restricted period for which the interest has been awarded by the tribunal is concerned, the learned Single Judge sustained the observations of the tribunal and accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is apparent that there was evidence to show that the 2nd respondent acted as an agent and attended in purchase of ground-nut pods during the relevant years with the consent of the petitioners. At this stage, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants in WA No.386 of 2002 that the ﬁnding of the learned Single Judge is contrary to Ex.A32 letter. All these aspects have been well considered by the tribunal. Apart from that, there is no material on record to show that the 2nd respondent was stopped from acting as an agent. In the absence of such material and in view of the well considered ﬁndings of the learned Single Judge as well as the tribunal, We feel that the order impugned needs no interference. Consequently, both the appeals are devoid of merits and thereby, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari ____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Dated: 2.9.2008 Nn/gurc. HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEALS NO :386 & 590 of 2002 (Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) 2nd September, 2008