WP/3700/2006 of Sunkara Thamma Rao, Vs The A.P. Cooperation Tribunal on 28 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for therecords relating to Judgment dated 25-1-2006 made in O.A.No.220 of2004 on the file of A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and toquash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles ofnatural justice.

Petitioner is the auction purchaser. Respondent No.5 (sincedied) obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the 3[rd] respondent-society. Respondent No.6 was the husband of the legal representative of the5[th] respondent and GPA holder. After the death of 6[th] respondent, hiswife – 7[th] respondent – came on record. When loan instalments werenot paid by the 5[th] respondent, proceedings were initiated under theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act,1964 forrecovery of the loan amount and accordingly, the Bank obtained anAward on 18-6-1992. Pursuant to the said Award, sale wasconducted. At that stage, the 6[th] respondent, GPA holder of the 5[th]respondent, filed O.A.No.1 of 1997 on the file of A.P. CooperativeTribunal, Vijayawada, questioning the sale notice, without impleadingthe auction purchaser-petitioner herein. Initially, stay was granted bythe Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner himself impleaded by filingM.P.No.27 of 1997. On contest, the stay was vacated. On 18-3-1997the sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was issued on 19-3-

1997. Later on, since respondents 5 and 6 died, O.A.No.1 of 1997 gotabated and an Order to that effect was passed by the Tribunal on 24-4-2000. Thereafter, respondent No.7 herein filed Writ Petition No.2830of 2004 questioning the Award dated 18-6-1992 and also theconsequential proceedings including the sale certificate issued by the2[nd] respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide CEPNo.2/95-96, dated 19-3-1997. However, the said Writ Petition wasdismissed on 16-2-2004 observing that it is open to the 7[th] respondentherein to approach the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam forappropriate orders. Questioning the said Order an appeal inW.A.No.546 of 2004 was filed, but the same was also dismissed on12-4-2004 observing that the application of the 7[th] respondent hereinin O.A.No.1 of 1997 was pending on the file of the A.P. CooperativeTribunal, Vijayawada and as such, nothing prevented her to pursuethat remedy. Thereafter, it seems, the 7[th] respondent moved theTribunal. In the meanwhile, A.P. Cooperative Tribunal atVisakhapatnam was constituted and as such, O.A.No.1 of 1997 wasrenumbered as O.A.220 of 2004 on the file of A.P. CooperativeTribunal at Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, byan Order dated 25-1-2006 allowed the appeal and set aside theauction notice issued by the 1[st] respondent dated 2-11-1996 and thesale confirmation order dated 18-3-1997 and remanded the matter tothe Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies for fresh disposal. Therespondent-society was also directed to accept the repayment of loanamount from the 7[th] respondent herein. Questioning the said order,the present Writ Petition is filed.

Now, it is the contention of the 7[th] respondent that in pursuanceof the Order passed by the Tribunal, she had deposited the entire amount with the 3[rd] respondent-society.

There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is a fact thatthe auction purchaser was a party to all the earlier proceedingsbetween the parties. But, when O.A.No.220 of 2004 was filed, he wasnot impleaded. By that time, according to the petitioner, the sale itselfwas confirmed and deliberately, the 7[th] respondent has not impleadedhim as a party. It appears that when the petitioner filed M.P.No.27 of1997 in O.A.No.1 of 1997 at A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawadaand the same was transferred to Visakhapatnam and numbered asO.A.220 of 2004 on the file of A.P. Cooperative Tribunal atVisakhapatnam, the name of the petitioner was not arrayed in thecause title. That seems to be the cause for not issuing notice to thepetitioner. May be, the petitioner is aware of the proceedings beforethis Court and also O.A.No.220 of 2004 before the A.P. CooperativeTribunal, Visakhapatnam, but that itself does not mean that the appealcould have been disposed of without hearing him. I am of the opinionthat the petitioner was not only a necessary, but also a proper party foradjudication of the appeal in O.A.No.220 of 2004 and the petitionerhad no opportunity to participate in those proceedings. Therefore,there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. On this groundalone, the Order dated 25-1-2006 passed in O.A.No.220 of 2004 isliable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. The matter isremitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, after impleadingthe petitioner and issuing notice to him. Petitioner herein shall beimpleaded as a party respondent in the said O.A. and he shall begiven an opportunity to file counter and lead evidence, if necessaryand the Tribunal then dispose of the matter in accordance with law,within a period of six months from today.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

prk

Office to despatchthe order along with theentire record to A.P.CooperativeTribunal, Visakhapatnamwithin one week. (B.O.) prk 28-12-2006