B. Ravindranath vs A. Muralimukund And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2702 Tel

      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

(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