K.Ramesh Chowdary vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4535 Tel

    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').

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

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

(1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651

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

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