IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22435 of 2004 Between: 1 K.Srinivas, S/o.K.Satyanarayana, R/o. Flat No.203, Block-B, Express Apartments, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 K.Satyanarayana, S/o.K.Krishna Rao, R/o. Flat No.203, Block-B, Express Apartments, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 K.Srihari, S/o.K.Satyanarayana, R/o. Flat No.203, Block-B, Express Apartments, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 M.Subrahmanyam, S/o.Venkateswarlu, R/o.H.No.SRT, 993, Sananthnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The A.P.Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad, rep.by its Chairman, 7th floor, Chandravihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Preduential Coop.Bank Ltd., R.P.Road, Secunderabad, A.P. rep.by its Managing Director. .....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 issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent not to proceed with auction of the property bearing No.1-10-195/1 situated at Ashoknagar, Hyderabad in pursuance of E.P.No.313/03 in O.P.No.535 of 2001 on the file of the 1st respondent which is illegal, arbitrary against the provisions of D.R.T.Act by setting aside the exparte award dt.27-3-2003 in O.P.No.535 of 2001 on the file of the 1st respondent and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHIVA SHANKER CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed on the sole ground that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass any order when the amount involved is more than Rs.10 lakhs. Learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Greater Bombay Co- op.Bank Ltd., v. M/s.United Yarn Tex.Pvt.Ltd. and others[1], wherein it was held as follows: “The dues of co-operatives and recovery proceedings in connection therewith are covered by specific Acts, such as the MCS Act, 1960 and the APCS Act, 1964, which are comprehensive and self-contained legislations. Similarly, for Multi-State Co-operatives there is a specific enactment in the form of the MSCS Act, 2002 comprehensively providing the legal framework in respect to issues pertaining to such co-operatives. Therefore, when there is an admittedly existing legal framework specifically dealing with issues pertaining to co- operatives and especially when the co-operative banks are, in any case, not covered by the provisions of the RDB Act specifically, there is no justification of covering the co-operative banks under the provisions of the RDB Act by invoking the Doctrine of Incorporation. The distinction between peoples’ co- operative banks serving their members and corporate banks doing commercial transactions is fundamental to the constitutional dispensation and understanding co-operative banking generally and in the context of cooperative banking not coming under the ambit of the BR Act. Thus, even if the co- operatives are involved in the activity of banking which involves lending and borrowing, this is purely incidental to their main co-operative activity which is a function in public domain. There was thus a conscious exclusion and deliberate commission of co-operative banks from the purview of the RDB Act. The reason for excluding co-operative banks seems to be that co- operative banks have comprehensive, self- contained and less expensive remedies available to them under the State Co-operative Societies Acts of the States concerned, while other banks and financial institutions did not have such speedy remedies and they had to file suits in civil courts. The RDB Act was, therefore, designed to deal with other banks and financial institutions which had to have recourse to the time-consuming process of the Civil Courts. The Co-operative Societies Act on the one hand and RDB Act on the other cannot be regarded as supplemental to each other viz., the provisions of the said Acts cannot be said to be pari materia. Section 31 of the RDB Act clearly refers to transfer of ‘every suit or other proceeding pending before any court’. The word ‘court’ in the context of the RDB Act, signifies ‘civil court’. It is clear that the Registrar, or an officer designated by him or an arbitrator under Sections 61, 62, 70 and 71 of the APCS Act, 1964 and under Section 91 and other provisions of Chapter IX of the MCS Act, 1960 are not ‘civil courts’. Finally, it could not be said that Amendments in Chapter V, Section 56 of the RDB Act by Act No.23 of 1965 inserting “co-operative bank” in Clause (cci) and “primary co-operative bank” in Clause (ccv) either expressly or by necessary intentment apply to the co-operative banks transacting business of banking. “Co-operative banks” established under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 {MCS Act, 1960}; the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 {APCS Act, 1964}; and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 {MSCS Act, 2002} transacting the business of banking, do not fall within the meaning of “banking company” as defined in Section 5 (c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 {BR Act}. Therefore, the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 {RDB Act} by invoking the Doctrine of Incorporation are not applicable to the recovery of dues by the co-operatives from their members.” In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ 19th February, 2008 SKM ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER Copy To 1 The Chairman, A.P.Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad, 7th floor, Chandravihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, Preduential Coop.Bank Ltd., R.P.Road, Secunderabad, A.P. 3. Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Co-operation, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA} [1] 2007 (3) SCJ 415