THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 35043, 32569, 32616, 33560
and 33574 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and
the same, the writ petitions are taken up together and being
disposed of by this common order.
Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rohit Pogula, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for
Cooperation for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri R.N. Hemendranath
Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Pratheek Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
The main grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the respondent No.4-Society is not furnishing the copies of the documents, which are the subject matter of inquiry under Section 51 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act').
2
Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that the respondent No.4
- Society is not furnishing the copies of the documents, which are necessary for the purpose of submitting an explanation to the summons issued to the petitioners by respondent No.3-Special Cadre Deputy Registrar/Inquiry Officer, in spite of the specific orders given by the Inquiry Officer, and thereby preventing the petitioners from filing a proper explanation. The learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the petitioners are willing to bear the entire costs for furnishing the copies of the documents.
Per contra, Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent - Society has stated that the copies of the documents, which are available with the Society, have already been furnished to the petitioners. Insofar as the documents, which are bulky and voluminous in nature, are concerned, the copies of the same could not be furnished, that the petitioners are free to inspect the documents, which are not furnished, in the premises of the Society. In support of the said contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the 3 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal1. The learned Senior Counsel has further stated that as per the Bye-Laws of the Society, a member can always inspect the relevant documents, but he cannot as a matter of right seek the copies of the documents, which are voluminous and bulky. The learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the present inquiry initiated against the petitioners under Section 51 of the Act, is administrative in nature, and only when the inquiry under Section 62 of the Act is contemplated, then the petitioners are entitled to get the copies of all the documents, and prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petitions.
A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners shows that pursuant to the summons issued by the respondent No.3, the petitioners have sought for the copies of the documents, which are matter of inquiry under Section 51 of the Act. When specific allegations are made against the petitioners and inquiry has been initiated against them on the basis of the documents/record available with respondent No.4-Society, the respondent No.4 is 1 (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651 4 under obligation to furnish the copies of the necessary documents to the petitioners for the purpose of submitting their explanation. If the Inquiry Officer is relying on the said documents or record, the Society has no other option but to furnish the same and it cannot decide the relevancy or otherwise of the documents sought for by the petitioners. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer has specifically directed the respondent No.4-Society to furnish the documents sought by the petitioners, but the Society, for the reasons best known to it, is not furnishing the said copies of the documents. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Society that the petitioners are seeking the documents on one pretext or the other only for the purpose of protracting the inquiry cannot be countenanced. Furthermore, without specifying the voluminous nature of the documents sought for by the petitioners, the Society cannot state that some of the documents sought for by the petitioners are voluminous in nature and cannot be furnished.
Having regard to the above, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent No.4 - Society to furnish the copies of 5 the documents sought for by the petitioners. In case any of the documents sought for by the petitioners are bulky or voluminous, respondent No.4-Society shall put the petitioners on notice explaining the specific reason as to why the said documents cannot be furnished i.e. how voluminous the record is, how many pages it contains, etc. then give an opportunity to the petitioners to either seek the documents on payment of costs or inspect the same in the premises of the Society.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 12.09.2022 va