THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.7392 of 2007 Date : 09-09-2010 Between : K.Naveen Chandra .. Petitioner and The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Office of the Divisional Cooperative Office, Golconda Division, Nampally, Hyderabad and 5 Others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.7392 of 2007 ORDER : The petitioner herein being a Member of the fourth respondent- Journalists Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, has filed this Writ Petition (for a relief as amended); to declare the show cause notice dated 28-03-2007 to remove the petitioner from the primary membership of the society and the inaction of the respondents to take action for the cancellation of allotment of plots by the said society to the respondents 5 and 6 and to resume the said plots allotted to non-members as per the letter of the first respondent/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Golconda Division, Hyderabad in RC.No.353/06H, dated 10-04-2006 addressed to the Secretary of the fourth respondent-society as illegal and arbitrary. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that he is a Member of the fourth respondent-society (for brevity, ‘society’), which is registered under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act vide registration No.T.A. 76 of 1960. The society developed lands at Punjagutta, Jubilee Hills and Bopannapalli for allotment of the plots to the members of the society. In response to a notification inviting applications for allotment of plots in the year 1994, the petitioner also made an application and paid two instalments. However, unable to pay the remaining instalments, he requested the society to refund the amount already paid. The society acceded to the request and refunded the amount already paid. Having voluntarily withdrawn the amount and opted to be out from the allotment process, he again made a representation dated 03-04-2004 to the society to allot an allegedly left over plot. It appears that the society did not accede to the said request of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner states and asserts that the society has committed grave irregularities in the allotment of plots. It is his allegation that the fifth and sixth respondents herein are not eligible for allotment of plots as per clause 42-B (9) of the byelaws of the Society. According to him, the fifth respondent owns flat No.35 in the premises bearing No.8-2-686/R/1/35 situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The fifth respondent purchased the said flat under a document registered on 09-12-1996. The sixth respondent also owns a plot No.64 in Sy.No.77 of Madhapur. The society allotted the plots in the Gopannapalli venture on 27-06-1998 by which date, according to the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 owned flat/plot as mentioned above, therefore they were not qualified for allotment in terms of the Byelaw 42-B (9) of the Byelaws. It is the case of the petitioner that being a Member, he addressed the said complaint by a representation dated 10- 02-2006 to the first respondent herein followed by another representation dated 28-02-2006. Incidentally, in the said representation he referred to other irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Society. Inasmuch as the said Byelaw does not permit allotment of plots to those who own houses/plots, according to the petitioner, the allotment made to the respondents 5 and 6 ought to be cancelled. The grievance is that despite the complaint made by representations dated 10-02-2006 and 28- 02-2006, no effective action was taken for cancellation of the plots. It is further stated that although the first respondent addressed a letter Rc.No.353/2006 H, dated 10-04-2006 to the Secretary of the Society, the said letter did not yield any result. It is further stated that the first respondent at one stage reacted to the complaint and caused an enquiry through the Assistant Registrar/SDLCO, Office of the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Nampally Mandal, Golconda Division. The said Officer submitted a report dated 31-12-2006 inter alia pointing out that respondents 5 and 6 purchased flat/plot. The first respondent although received the said report has not taken any action thereafter. It is therefore the case of the writ petitioner that the first respondent should be compelled to take action pursuant to the aforesaid representations of the petitioner and the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar/SDLCO, Nampally Mandal, Golconda Division. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri T.Kistaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterated the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner and seeks appropriate orders to the first respondent to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the representations referred to above in the light of the report of the Assistant Registrar/SDLCO, Nampally Mandal, Golconda Division. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4, 5 and 6 would submit that the society has not indulged in any irregularity, much less in the allotment of plots to respondents 5 and 6. He would submit that respondents 5 and 6 did not incur disqualification in terms of Byelaw No.42-B (9). He would further submit that as per the said Byelaw the society operates within the territorial limits of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and owning a plot/house outside the area of operation of the society cannot be considered as a disqualification. According to him, the said Byelaw contemplates prohibition only in respect of an open plot or an independent house but not a flat. According to him a flat cannot be equated as an independent house, therefore cannot be a disqualification. Respondent No.6 owns a plot situated at Madhapur, which is outside the territorial limits of the operation of the society and as such, he cannot be considered to be disqualified for allotment of a plot by the society. Whether the respondents 5 and 6 possessed flat/plot as contended on behalf of the petitioner and whether such flat/plot are situated within the area of operation of the Society and whether such holding, if any, violates the Byelaws are all the disputed questions of fact which have to be decided on the basis of material by a competent authority and not in the Writ Petition. A complaint as to the irregularities in the allotment of plots by the society has already been made to the first respondent and the first respondent acting on the said complaint has also obtained a report from the Assistant Registrar/SDLCO, Nampally Mandal, Golconda Division, Hyderabad as long back as 31-12-2006. The first respondent having initiated action is not justified in keeping the proceedings unattended to. A duty is cast upon him to hold such further enquiry if permissible under law and pass orders one way or the other on the complaints made by the petitioner. Inaction in the discharge of this duty being the grievance of the petitioner, it is just and appropriate to direct the first respondent to conduct enquiry as per law and complete the exercise on the alleged irregularities in the matter of allotment of plots violating the terms of Byelaw 42-B(9) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after due notice to all the unofficial respondents herein and also those who is likely to be affected. As far as the relief in respect of the show cause notice dated 28- 03-2007, it is represented by the learned counsel Sri S.V.Bhatt that the said show cause notice has been withdrawn and a fresh show cause notice dated 27-01-2009 has already been given. Therefore, the cause insofar as the challenge to show cause notice dated 28-03-2007 does not survive for adjudication. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that any observations made in this judgment shall not be treated as the opinion expressed by the Court. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 09th September, 2010. skmr