WP/679/2007 of Sri Shaik Anwar pasha Vs The Divisional Coop. Officer, Hyderabad East on 26 December 2007

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings before theDivisional Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad, East Division, RangaReddy District, Hyderabad in Case No.1139 of 2005-G.

It is the case of the petitioner that he has taken loan from the 2[nd]respondent bank and the second respondent bank represented by theLiquidator has filed an application under section 71(1) of the AndhraPradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), to issuea certificate for a sum of Rs.2,21,122/- against him towards principaland interest up to 30.11.2002. Based on the said application, a noticedated 30.8.2006 was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrarof Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad, directing him to appear inperson on 16.9.06 to show cause against the application filed undersection 71(1) of the Act by the second respondent. The maincontention of the petitioner is that he has discharged the debt and isnot liable to pay any amount and that he has also filed memos dated16.9.2006 and 25.11.2006 to furnish the statement of accounts and theaudit reports of the respondent Bank for the years 2000 to 2004 tosubstantiate his case that he has paid the loan amount and that hisaccount was closed. Contending that the non-furnishing of the abovestated documents resulted in great prejudice to him, the present writpetition is filed stating that the proceedings before the DeputyRegistrar of Cooperative Societies cannot go on without furnishing thedocuments sought for by him. It is also his case that the presentpresiding officer is the in-charge Liquidator of the 2[nd] respondent Bankat the time of filing of the application under Section 71 of the Act andon that count also the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar cannotgo on.

This Court while admitting the writ petition on 5.1.2007 grantedinterim stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the impugnednotice dated 30.8.2006. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent – TheDivisional Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad East Division has filed avacate stay petition in W.V.M.P. No. 3109 of 2007 accompanied with acounter affidavit, seeking vacation of the interim orders granted by thisCourt. Though the writ petition was admitted on 5.1.2007, when the vacate petition was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the 2[nd]respondent could not be served with the notice, as the addressfurnished by the petitioner was insufficient. Therefore, on 18.12.2007,the petitioner was again directed to take out notice to the 2[nd]respondent personally and also to furnish his correct address and thematter was adjourned to 26.12.2007. Even on that date, the petitionerdid not furnish the correct address of the 2[nd] respondent and, therefore,the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent.

The 2[nd] respondent has filed an application under Section 71(1)of the Act against the petitioner and based on the said application, theDeputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued notice to thepetitioner on 15.7.2004 calling upon him to appear before thecompetent authority on 24.7.2004 and also to show cause as to whythe certificate under Section 71(1) of the Act should not be issued. As against theimpugned show cause notice, the petitioner has an effectivealternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal under Section 76(1) ofthe Act, however, without exhausting the said remedy, he has straightaway approached this Court.

Despite granting sufficient time, and despite specific directionsby this Court to the petitioner to furnish the correct address ofrespondent No.2, he has failed to furnish the same, and for non-furnishing of correct address, which resulted in the 2[nd] respondent notbeing served, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this scoreitself.

Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that since the Presiding Officer was the Presenting Officer of 2[nd] respondent-Bankwhen he filed the application, he cannot conduct the presentproceedings, is concerned, it is stated in the counter filed by the 1[st]respondent that he had obtained orders from the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, for posting anotherofficer of the Department as Presiding Officer in the place of thepresent Presiding Officer, and having obtained orders, videproceedings dated 6.1.2005, appointed another officer as PresidingOfficer in the place of the present Presiding Officer. Since anotherofficer has been appointed as Presiding Officer in the place of thepresent Presiding Officer, who was earlier Presenting Officer of the 2[nd]respondent, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

Insofar as the request made by the petitioner for furnishing ofcopies of statement of accounts and audit reports of the 2[nd]respondent-Bank for the years 2000 to 2004, as they would reflectclosure of his loan account, is concerned, it is stated in the counter thateven if the Auditor goes in detail of the outstanding and pending loanaccounts, he may merely mentioned the details of the accounts whichhave become non-performing assets and against which legal actionhas been initiated or can be initiated for recovering the loan amount,and he may not deal with the details of closed loan accounts, and atthe most, he may give the number of loans closed on completerealization of the dues. However, it has to be verified whether theAuditor has discussed the said details in the audit reports. It ishowever, contended in the counter that the arbitration case will betaken up for enquiry only after the 2[nd] respondent furnishes thestatement of account of the petitioner and also the audit reports assought for by him. In view of the stand taken by the 1[st] respondent inthe counter that they will proceed with the arbitration case only after heis furnished with the statement of accounts and audit reports as soughtfor by him, the petitioner’s grievance stands redressed.

In the above view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writpetition, and the same is accordingly dismissed, and consequently theinterim order granted by this Court on 5.1.2007 is vacated.

However, the respondents as stated by them in the counter,before proceeding further in the matter shall furnish the copies of thestatements of the amounts paid by the petitioner as sought for by him. If the petitioner has cleared the debt, he can furnish the documentsavailable with him in proof of repayment of the debt, and in whichevent, the 1[st] respondent shall verify the same, and take the same intoaccount while disposing of the arbitration case.

___________

N.V.RAMANA,J

TVK/msv

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NO :679 of2007