Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Peeta Venkateswarlu, vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 4 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE: W.P. No. 4822 of 2012 & CC No. 1171 of 2010
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
20. 04.07.2022 RNT, J
Heard Sri V. N. Anagani, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Peeta Raman, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order
dated 20.10.2005 in S.A.Case No.1 of 2005 under
Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops &
Establishments Act, 1988 by the 1st respondent -
the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, Guntur,
mainly on the ground that during pendency of
S.A.Case No.1 of 2005 Dhulipudi Primary
Agricultural Cooperative Society was
amalgamated in the petitioner's society, Nagaram
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, under
the orders of Registrar, dated 25.07.2005, passed
under Section 15-A (2) of the A.P.Cooperative
Societies Act, 1964, but in spite thereof the 2nd
respondent herein i.e., the claimant therein did
not implead the petitioner and as such the order
dated 20.10.2005 has been passed without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and further in view of Section 15-A (3)
(ii) of the Act, 1964 on passing of an order of
amalgamation by the Registrar under Sub-
Sec.(2), the registration of every amalgamated
society shall stand cancelled and such society
shall cease to exist as a corporate body. The
society against which S.A.Case No.1 of 2005 was
filed, on amalgamation i.e., on 25.07.2005,
ceased to exist as a corporate body and the
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
petitioner society not having been impleaded as
party, the impugned order is against non-existing
entity which cannot be implemented/enforced
against the petitioner.
3. Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent, submits that though the
petitioner was not impleaded but a counter
affidavit was filed under the signatures of the
Chairperson of the petitioner's society and
therefore, it cannot be said that the order was
passed without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
4. He further submits that in view of
Section 15-A (7) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies
Act, 1964, which provides that notwithstanding
anything in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or
the Registration Act, 1908 an order issued under
section 15, shall be sufficient conveyance to
transfer the assets and liabilities of the society or
societies covered by any order passed under sub-
section (2) of Section 15, all the liabilities and
assets of the amalgamated society i.e., Dhulipudi
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society stood
transferred to the petitioner society and
consequently, there is no illegality in the
impugned order which can legally be enforced
and implemented against the petitioner society.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that under Section 15-A(7) of
A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 only those
assets and the liabilities of the Societies covered
by the order passed under Sub-Sec.(2) stand
transferred which existed on the date of the
order of amalgamation, but in the present case,
the order was passed on 20.10.2005 i.e., after
the order of amalgamation dated 25.07.2005, the
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
petitioner cannot be held liable. His further
submission is that the counter was not filed in
S.A.Case No.1 of 2005 and the counter as has
mentioned in the order admitting the case of the
respondent was a forged one.
6. It has been pointed out from the
records that this Court, in view of the controversy
raised and in the light of the submissions
advanced with respect to the filing of the counter
affidavit in S.A.Case No.1 of 2005 the counter
affidavit being forged one, directed for an
enquiry, pursuant to which, the IV Additional
Senior Civil Judge, FAC Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Guntur submitted its findings and
considering the same the order dated 20.09.2010
was passed by this Court.
7. It has also been pointed out from the
records that for execution of the order dated
20.10.2005 in S.A.Case No.1 of 2005, 1st
respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.1324 of 2007, which
was rejected on 18.10.2007 by the II Addl.Munsif
Magistrate, Repalle, against which Cril.R.C.No.117
of 2008 was filed before this Court which was
allowed by setting aside the order dated
18.10.2007 with direction to the Magistrate to
recover the amount as if a fine under Section 421
of Cr.P.C and pay the same to the petitioner, vide
judgment dated 31.12.2009, observing that the
Order dated 20.10.2005, for non-impleadment of
the petitioner, would not become void.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the point,
which inter alia requires consideration is the
effect of the observations made in Crl.R.C.No.117
of 2008, dated 31.12.2009, on the impugned
order dated 20.10.2005, keeping in view that the
order dated 20.10.2005 was not under challenge
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
in that revision. The subject matter of that
revision was the order dated 18.10.2007, though
for execution of the order dated 20.10.2005.
9. On the joint request of the learned
counsels for the parties, list on 06.07.2022 to
enable them to address on the aforesaid point,
along with the report/findings of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, as recorded in the
order dated 20.09.2010.
_________
RNT, J
Dsr
