WP/24338/2020 of Mohammed Shaik ISA Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others on 31 December 2020

ORDER:

Hcard lcarncd counsel lbr thc petitionors, lcarneci Assistant(lovernment Pleadcr for Cooperation ancl learned Assistant(;overnmen t plcader lor Revenue.2. Petitioners are aggrievecl by the notice issued by theAssistant Registrar/Sale Officer_4th respondent on lg.12.2O2O.

3Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend thatseveral illegalities have taken place and the Chief Executivepetitioners sought to contend thatseveral illegalities have taken place and the Chief ExecutiveOfficer-8fr respondent of thePrimary Agricultural Co-operativeSociety, Neela-7tt respondent herein, committed several illegalitiesincluding creating false accounts and obtaining loans. petitionersnever obtained loans and the loans alleged to have been obtainedby the petitioners \ rere actually obtained by the grh respondent.several illegalitiesincluding creating false accounts and obtaining loans. petitionersnever obtained loans and the loans alleged to have been obtainedby the petitioners \ rere actually obtained by the grh respondent.These facts are already on record_ That being so, illegally theimpugned noLices are issuecr at rhc instance of 7th respondent andwithout looking into this aspcct, rhe Assrstant Registrar/Salcimpugned noLices are issuecr at rhc instance of 7th respondent andwithout looking into this aspcct, rhe Assrstant Registrar/SalcOfficcr issued impugned notices and the same is ex-lacie illegal.

4. The notices dated 1g. 12.2O2O are issued under Section 71(i)of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 7964 (for short ,theAct'). This provision enables to recover the arrears of any sumadvanced. It requires the concerned Society/ FinancingBank/Federal Society to apply to the Sale Officer to issue recoverycertificate. On receiving such request, according to the provisionin sub-Section (1), the sale orficer is required to cause notice on the persons concerRed, who is craimed to have defaurted and aftermaking such enquiry as required, he may issue sare certificate.

.). jnUS,lrom a reading of this provision, it is clear thatwhenever,a request is made by the Society/ FinancingBank/ Federal Society, alleging that certain amounts due are notpaid and have to be recovered, the Sale Officer can issue salecertificate to enable the Society/ Financing Bank/Federal Societv totake further steps to recoup the alleged loss caused to them.Before issuing the certificate, the persons against whom thecertificate is sought, have to be put on notice. perforce, since anotice is required to be issued, it implies that the person againstwhom the notice is issued is entitled to put forth his defence, albeitin thc limited context of whether certificate can be issued or notand on filing objections, the Sale Offlcer is required to enquire intothe issue and take a decision. It is not the case of petitioners that4th respondent is not competent to issue notices.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend thatthe Chief Executive Officer is the actual culprit and proceedingsought to have been issued against him and not to the petitioners.This aspect can also be placed before the Assistant Registrar/galeOfficer. Petitioners may have a grievance only if a decision is madeby the Assistant Registrar/sale officer to issue certificate ofrecovery, to work out their remedies. As long as power is availableto the Assistant Registrar/ Sale officer who caused notice andwhen the same is issued in exercise of that power, petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India and interject the process set in motion. in accordance with the provisions of law. It can not be said thatpetltioners are remediless if any adverse decision is made. It isalways open to the petitioners to raise all pleas available to themincluding the pleas urged in this writ petition challenging thenotices. As the Court is satisfied that the Assistant Registrar/ SaieOfficer is competent to jssuc noticcs and in valid exercise of po,"vervested tn him under Section 71 (11 of the Act notices are issued,the Court is not inciinecl to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed leaving it open tothe petitioners to work out their remedies, as available in law.Petitioners are entitled to raise all objections as availab.le in law inresponse to the impugned notices and on filing such objections,the Assistant Registrar/ Sale Officer is directed to examine thesame and take a decision assigning due reasons in support of thedecision strictly in compliance with Sectio n T I of the Act andcommunicate the same to the petitioners. petitioners are grantedtwo more weeks time from today to file their objections in responseto the impLlgnecl notjcesPending miscellaneous petitions shallstarncl closcd.

SD/-V,SUDHAASSISTANT REGISR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,1The Assistant Registrar/Sale officer, Nizamabad District Cooperative centralBank Ltd(NDCCB) Nizamabad.2.One CC to Sri T Sujan Kumar Advocate [OPUC]3.Two CCs to GP For Cooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]4.Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]5.Two CD CopiesIVBC

rttr[)],b,

DATED: 3111212020

\J \c11JAt{2021aORDER

WP.No.24338 of [2020]

DISMISSING [THE ][WRIT ][PETITION]WITHOUT COSTS