Telangana High Court
Rayala Venkata Seshagiri Rao vs State Of Telangana on 19 April, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 5435 OF 2024
ORDER:
Petitioner filed this Writ Petition questioning the proceedings dated 23.01.2024 disqualifying him as President of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Gangadevipadu and also the Chairman of District Cooperative Marketing Society, Khammam and consequential proceedings dated 26.01.2024 appointing Sri Thoom Veerabhadra Rao as President of the Cooperative Society and the 6th respondent as Chairman of the Marketing Society respectively.
2. The case of petitioner is that he was elected as Chairman of District Cooperative Marketing Society, Khammam and also the President of the 5th respondent -Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Gangadevipadu.
It is stated, petitioner availed vehicle loan to a tune of Rs.27 lacs from the 4th respondent bank on 24.10.2018 to be repaid in five years which will come to a close by 24.10.2023. He was regular in payment to a large extent, but as he was hit by Covid- 19, doctors stated his survival chances were very bleak. At that time, he defaulted in making payments. While so, the 2nd respondent - District Cooperative Officer on the recommendations 2 of the 4th respondent, without giving prior notice passed a certificate / decree under Section 71 of the Act vide case No. 2322/2022-23, dated 20.01.2023 for recovery of overdue amount; thereafter on 17.01.2024, his vehicle was attached with a demand to pay the total loan amount @ Rs.23,22,100/-. Petitioner is stated to have paid the said amount on 18.01.2024 and obtained 'No due certificate' from the 4th respondent.
However, on 09.01.2024, it is stated, petitioner was issued notice under Sections 21-A(1)(b) and (c) demanding to pay Rs.25,93,569/- as on 31.12.2023, for which, he offered explanation. Without considering the same, the order impugned disqualifying him was passed on 23.01.2024 ie. after payment of total loan amount. Further, the 2nd respondent invoking Section 32-B of the Act declared that the powers and functions of the President of the District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Khammam are devolved on the 6th respondent - Vice-President, by proceedingsdated26.01.2024 Challenging the proceedings dated 23.01.2024, petitioner filed CTA No. 1 of 2024 before the Telangana Cooperative Tribunal at Warangal, which, after considering the material, allowed I.A.No. 5 of 2024 on 08.02.2024 temporarily suspending the proceedings dated 23.01.2024. Consequently, the order dated 26.01.2024 is also suspended. Hence, petitioner is stated to have approached the 2nd respondent and gave representation dated 15.02.2024 to 3 implement the order dated 08.02.2024, by revoking the order passed under Section 32(B) of the Act, but there is no response. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 23.01.2024 and the consequential proceedings dated 26.01.2024 as illegal and arbitrary.
In his counter, the 6th respondent states at the threshold that Writ Petition is not maintainable as, as against the orders dated 23.01.2024 and 26.01.2024, petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2024 and when the said Writ Petition was reserved for orders, suppressing the said fact, he filed Appeal before the Tribunal and in I.A.No. 5 of 2024, on 01.02.2024, obtained interim suspension of the order dated 23.01.2024. It is stated, as on 01.02.2024, Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2024 is still pending and Appeal is also pending with interim order dated 08.02.2024. Now, the objection of this respondent is, when Appeal is pending before the Tribunal against the order dated 23.01.2024, how can the petitioner maintain the present Writ Petition against the same order, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
It is further stated that, as an interim measure, petitioner sought for implementation of order dated 08.02.2024 of the Tribunal, but failed to mention the provision of law under which he can seek such a relief. Learned counsel Sri P.V. Ramana submits that Telangana Cooperative Tribunal Procedure Rules, 4 1994 were issued in G.O.Ms.No. 45, dated 01.06.2023 regulating filing of Appeals; under Rule 26, whenever Rules are silent on the question of any procedure, the Tribunal shall follow the procedure stipulated under the Code of Civil Procedure. Without resorting to such procedure, question of invoking jurisdiction under Section 226 does not arise; on this ground also, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
It is stated that this respondent was elected as President of Large Scale Cooperative Society, Paloncha and further elected as Vice-Chairman of DCMS, Khammam. While it being so, by order dated 26.01.2024, he was conferred with the powers of Chairman of DCMS, i.e. after disqualifying petitioner on 23.01.2024. It is stated that petitioner has to clear the loan by 24.01.2023; as against 60 monthly instalments, he hardly paid
20. Hence, Section 71 certificate was issued by the competent authority on 20.01.2023, despite, he has not paid the amount before five-year term, which implies he suffered disqualification from 2020. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court to Section 21(A)(B) of the Act and submits that no person shall be chosen or continued to be a member of Managing Committee if he commits default in payment of loan amount to the Society. Relatively, learned counsel cites the judgment in R. Venkata 5 Ranga Reddy v. N. Muralidhar Rao 1 which elaborately considered the issue, relying upon the Full Bench decision under the Gram Panchayat Act and declared at paras 14, 15 and 16 that the moment a person commits default in paying any amount, he earns disqualification from the said date but not from the date of order. The said judgment was also followed by the Special Bench in The Pulla Co-op. Rural Bank Ltd. v. B. Ram Mohan Rao 2. Therefore, he argues that payment of entire loan amount after the period of loan does not cure the disqualification which the petitioner incurs.
This respondent has taken another objection that in the Tribunal, his designation was wrongly mentioned, hence, he did not receive any notice. Though subsequently, he got the cause title amended on 08.02.2024, without issuing notice, ex parte interim order was passed. Therefore, asking the Court to implement the ex parte interim order is unknown to law and not maintainable.
3. Sri P. Vamseedhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the changed political scenario, the 2nd respondent yielded to the pressure of ruling party and illegally and high-handedly, issued disqualification proceedings against petitioner.
1
AIR 1983 AP 83 2 1998(6) ALT 274 6
4. Heard learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
5. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner questioned disqualification proceedings dated 23.01.2024 and consequential proceedings dated 26.01.2024 by filing Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2024 and pending the said Writ Petition, against the same order dated 23.01.2024, he approached the Tribunal (C.T.A.No. 1 of 2024) and obtained interim order of suspension on 08.02.2024, duly suppressing the factum of pendency of Writ Petition. Subsequently, it appears, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn. However, as against the impugned order, Appeal is pending as of now; still, he has chosen to file the present Writ Petition for the self-same relief. It is well-settled that a party cannot maintain parallel remedy. This Writ Petition which was filed during pendency of the Appeal is therefore, not at all maintainable. The entire writ affidavit is silent and there is no whisper about filing of Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2024. If the order dated 08.02.2024 in I.A.No. 5 of 2024 in C.T.A.No. 1 of 2024 is not implemented, petitioner has to take recourse to law under appropriate provision but he cannot venture to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
6. Today, this Court allowed Writ Petitions No. 5242 and 5308 of 2024 wherein the order dated 08.02.2024 of the Telangana Cooperative Tribunal at Warangal in I.A.No. 5 of 2024 7 in C.T.A.No. 1 of 2024 was under challenge. Consequently, the order dated 0802.2024 through which the proceedings impugned in this Writ Petition were suspended. Furthermore, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2024 questioning the order dated 23.01.2024 and 26.012024 and pending the same, suppressing the said fact, he preferred Appeal before the Tribunal and obtained interim order of suspension dated 23.01.2024 which clearly establishes that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. The Writ Petition is therefore, said to be misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 19th April 2024 ksld