THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Letters Patent Appeal No.5 of 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
This Letters Patent Appeal is filed challenging the order
dt.17.09.2021 passed in Contempt Case No.1080 of 2021 by the learned
single Judge.
2. The 1st respondent is the Secretary of the Jubilee Hills
Co-operative Housing Building Society Limited (for short, 'the Society').
3. The Managing Committee of the said Society passed a resolution on 11.08.2021 curtailing the powers of 1st respondent. This was communicated by appellant, who is the President of the Society, to 1st respondent on 12.08.2021.
4. The 1st respondent questioned the same in Writ Petition No.19598 of 2021, and in I.A.No.2 of 2021 on 18.08.2021, the learned Single Judge suspended the same, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
5. Thereafter, a Motion of 'No Confidence' was moved against the 1st respondent by the Members of the Managing Committee of the HACJ & TVK,J ::2:: lpa_5_2021 Society by serving a notice dt.26.08.2021 on the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2nd respondent herein).
6. On 27.08.2021, the 2nd respondent invoked powers conferred under him under Section 34-A(3) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and issued notice to the Members of the Managing Committee asking them to attend a meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society to be held on 17.09.2021 at 11:30 a.m. to conduct the proceedings of the motion of 'No Confidence' against the 1st respondent.
7. In the meantime, the Managing Committee of the Society preferred Writ Appeal No.458 of 2021 challenging the order dt.18.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.19598 of 2021. They had also sought suspension of the said order by filing I.A.No.3 of 2021 in Writ Appeal No.458 of 2021.
8. After hearing both sides on 15.09.2021, the following order was passed by the Division Judge suspending the order dt.18.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.19598 of 2021.
"Heard counsel for the appellant and Sri D.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent.
Prima facie, the very Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent in this High Court challenging the communication dated 12.08.2021, served on him by the 4th respondent, is not maintainable in view of Section 61 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, which provides an adequate alternative remedy for resolution of disputes of such nature. Therefore, prima facie, the said Writ Petition is not maintainable and the HACJ & TVK,J ::3:: lpa_5_2021 learned Single Judge erred in entertaining it and granted interim direction, which is impugned in this Writ Appeal.
Therefore, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for.
List this Writ Appeal along with W.P.No.19598 of 2021 on 24.09.2021."
9. Thereafter, the motion of 'No Confidence' was passed against the 1st respondent on 17.09.2021 and proceedings to that effect were also issued by the 2nd respondent on the same day.
10. Prior thereto, on 03.09.2021, Contempt Case No.1080 of 2021 had been filed by the 1st respondent to punish the appellant and 2nd respondent for Contempt of Court for alleged violation of the orders passed on 18.08.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 and I.A.No.2 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.19598 of 2021.
11. This Contempt Case was taken up by the learned Single Judge on 17.09.2021, the day when the 'No Confidence' motion against the 1st respondent was to be taken up by the Managing Committee of the said Society.
12. The learned Single Judge closed the Contempt Case in view of the order passed by the Division Bench on 15.09.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in Writ Appeal No.458 of 2021, but however held at para no.7 that the proceedings dt.26.08.2021 of 1st respondent are stayed for a period of three (03) days; and that the 1st respondent is at liberty to pursue remedies available under law, if so advised.
HACJ & TVK,J
::4:: lpa_5_2021
It also observed that since the order dt.18.08.2021 was in force as on 26.08.2021 (the day when the 2nd respondent passed orders calling for meeting to consider the 'No Confidence' motion) this amounted to contempt of court. But, by taking a lenient view, the Court advised him not to venture to commit such acts in future.
13. It is the contention of counsel for appellant in the present Appeal that the Division Bench in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in Writ Appeal No.458 of 2021 on 15.09.2021 specifically observed that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and that there was also non-joinder of proper parties. He also contended that there was alternative remedy available to 1st respondent under Section 61 of the Act, and that the learned single Judge, while closing the Contempt Case No.1080 of 2021, could not have granted relief which he did when it is not within the scope of the Contempt case. It was further contended that the cause of action pleaded in the Contempt Case regarding the proceedings dt.26.08.2021 is altogether a different cause of action from that in the Writ Petition No.19598 of 2021 and 'No Confidence' Motion was not the subject matter of the said Writ Petition.
14. Reliance was also placed by the counsel for appellant in K. Arumugam vs. V. Balakrsihnan and others1 to contend that while exercising contempt jurisdiction the Court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed and it cannot 1 (2019) 18 S.C.C. 150 HACJ & TVK,J ::5:: lpa_5_2021 travel beyond it; and it is not open to pass any order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed, and that such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court.
15. Sri D. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of 1st respondent, however refuted the said contentions.
16. According to him, the Letters Patent Appeal itself is not maintainable because the proceedings dt.26.08.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent were stayed only for a period of three (03) days and the said period has already been expired. He also stated that thereafter the said proceedings would revive and anyway the 1st respondent had challenged the 'No Confidence' motion passed against him on 17.09.2021 under the Act before the Co-operative Tribunal the appellant should pursue the remedy in that forum.
17. Refuting the said contentions, the counsel for appellant contended that when the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.458 of 2021 on 15.09.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 suspended the order dt.18.08.2021 passed in I.A.No. 2 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.19598 of 2021, the learned Single Judge erred in stating that the said order dt.18.08.2021 which was challenged in the Writ Petition was in force till 26.08.2021, the day when the 1st respondent had passed orders calling for 'No Confidence' motion meeting. He also contended that the effect of the suspension of the order of the learned Single Judge by the Division Bench on 15.09.2021 in IA. No.3 of 2021 in WA No.458 of 2021 would HACJ & TVK,J ::6:: lpa_5_2021 be that such order cannot be said to be in existence at all from its inception. He also submitted that the Co-operative Tribunal is getting influenced by the observations of the learned Single Judge in his order dt.17.09.2021 passed in Contempt Case No.1080 of 2021 wherein the proceedings dt.26.08.2021 of the 2nd respondent were stayed for three (03) days and is contemplating extending the said stay as well.
18. We have noted the contentions of both sides.
19. Primarily, we are of the opinion that the Contempt Case itself was filed for alleged violation of the order dt.18.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.19598 of 2021.
20. In the said Writ Petition, the proceedings dt.12.08.2021 curtailing the powers of the 1st respondent by the Managing Committee of the Society, which was communicated by the 2nd respondent, were under challenge.
21. The order of the learned single Judge passed dt.18.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.19598 of 2021 had been suspended by us in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in Writ Appeal No.458 of 2021. Therefore, the effect of the suspension of the same is that the said order is kept in abeyance and would not have any effect at all and cannot be said to be in force till 26.08.2021 as held by the learned Single Judge.
22. Moreover, the Contempt Case can at best be confined to the subject matter of the Writ Petition, i.e., the proceedings dt.12.08.2021 HACJ & TVK,J ::7:: lpa_5_2021 curtailing the powers of 1st respondent by the Managing Committee, but its scope could not have been widened by the learned single Judge to take into account the 'No Confidence' motion proposal made on 26.08.2021 by the Managing Committee of the Society or the notice dt.27.08.2021 issued by the Commissioner of Co-operation convening the meeting for consideration of the said 'No Confidence' motion on 19.09.2021.
23. These are the new causes of action which ought to have been challenged in separate proceedings by the 1st respondent.
24. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have granted any stay of the proceedings dt.26.08.2021 of the 2nd respondent for three (03) days at all.
25. It appears as if the orders passed by this Bench on 15.09.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in Writ Appeal No.458 of 2021 were attempted to be nullified by the learned single Judge by passing the impugned order dt.17.9.2021 in CC No.1080 of 2021 as if they had no effect at all.We do not appreciate this.
26. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order dt.17.9.2021 in CC No.1080 of 2021 granting relief of stay of proceedings dt.26.08.2021 of the 2nd respondent for a period of three (03) days by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, and the said portion of the order dt.17.09.2021 passed in Contempt Case No.1080 of 2021 is set aside.
HACJ & TVK,J
::8:: lpa_5_2021
27. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
28. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
________________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, HACJ _______________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 21.09.2021 Ndr