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
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
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,
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
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.
AIR 1983 AP 83
1998(6) ALT 274
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
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
