Telangana High Court
Smt. Ala Poola And 7 Others vs Govt. Of Telangana And 4 Others on 21 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 3556 OF 2020
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of
mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
order passed by the respondent No.3, superseding the Managing
Committee of the Muthyal Rao Cooperative Housing Society
Limited issued vide impugned order in proceedings
RC.No.1412/2016-H, dated 13.04.2017 pursuant to the enquiry
under section 51 of TCS Act and its report thereon and
consequent dismissal of appeal by the Cooperative Tribunal vide
its judgment dated 31.01.2020 in CTA No.25 of 2018, to declare
the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and violative of provisions of the TCS Act,
1964 and TCS Rules, 1964 and also in violation of the principles
of natural justice and consequently to allow the appeal and to
pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioners are the members of the
Managing Committee of the Muthyal Rao Cooperative Housing
Society Limited. An enquiry under Section 51 of the TCS Act
TMD,J
was ordered and on the basis of the inquiry report, the
proceedings under Section 34 of the Act were initiated and the
order in RC.No.1412/2016-H, dated 13.04.2017, superseding
the Managing Committee of the society, was passed. The said
order was challenged by way of filing the Writ Petition i.e.,
W.P.No.13651 of 2017, which was finally disposed of by this
Court on 19.03.2018, directing the petitioners to file an appeal
before the Cooperative Tribunal while maintaining the status-
quo till the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the petitioners
have filed CTA No.25 of 2018 and the respondent No.5 filed
I.A.No.131 of 2018 as to the maintainability of the CTA and the
same was allowed by order dated 19.02.2019, dismissing the
CTA. Against the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3898 of
2019, which was allowed by order dated 23.02.2019, restoring
CTA No.25 of 2018.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners filed I.A.No.84 of
2019 to summon the respondents No.3 and 4 for the recording
of evidence and marking of the documents. However, the said
I.A. was dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2019 and the
petitioners filed W.P.No.11014 of 2019 against the same and
this Court has disposed of the writ petition vide order dated
TMD,J
13.06.2019, directing the Tribunal to decide the I.A. No.84 of
2019 afresh. The Tribunal after hearing both parties, dismissed
the said I.A., by an order dated 02.08.2019, against which
W.P.No.18855 of 2019 was filed and the same was also
dismissed by an order dated 12.09.2019.
4. It is submitted that the Tribunal was insisting for
hearing of the appeal pursuant to the High Court order dated
13.06.2019 when I.A.No.132 of 2019 was filed on 16.08.2019 to
adjourn the case by two weeks as the counsel on record was
sick, but the adjournment was not granted and I.A., was
dismissed and the Tribunal insisted on the argument of the
appeal and the Tribunal heard the arguments of the respondent
No.5, 3 & 4 and reserved the same for judgment on 06.09.2019.
In the meantime, as the details of the order of the High Court
while dismissing the W.P.No.18855 of 2019, dated 12.09.2019,
were not known to the petitioners, the petitioners have filed a
memo before the Tribunal on 13.09.2019, submitting that the
writ petition was dismissed directing the disposal of the appeal
expeditiously, but the counsel for the respondent No.5 had
stated that it was a simple dismissal without any observation
and believing the same, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal
TMD,J
on 13.09.2019. It is submitted that the copy of the judgment
dated 13.09.2019 in CTA No.25 of 2018 was furnished only on
21.09.2019 and against the same, a review petition was filed on
23.09.2019, as 22.09.2019 was Sunday. The review petition was
also rejected as devoid of merits by an order dated 04.10.2019,
a copy of which was furnished only on 14.10.2019. Since it was
an ex-parte order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.26563 of 2019
before this Court and it was allowed on 02.12.2019, directing
the Tribunal to re-hear the appeal and pass orders after hearing
both parties and that no adjournment should be granted to
either party.
5. It is submitted that in compliance with the
directions of the Court, the petitioners and their counsel
appeared before the Tribunal on 13.12.2019 and the matter was
taken up only in the afternoon at 3:20 p.m., and the counsel for
the petitioners argued the appeal with reference to the record of
the department running over 2019 pages of four volumes and
since he got exhausted due to a continuous argument and his
ill-health, he had requested to adjourn the appeal to the next
day, but the Tribunal refused the same in view of the order of
this High Court and the counsel could not complete his
TMD,J
argument with reference to the record as only two volumes
were referred to and the other two volumes could not be referred
to due to exhaustion and the appeal was reserved for judgment
on 13.12.2019 itself.
6. It is submitted that the term of the Managing
Committee consisting of petitioners came to an end on
25.01.2020, whereas the judgment was delivered by the
Tribunal only on 31.01.2020 i.e., after 49 days of reserving it,
dismissing the appeal without costs. It is submitted that there
was no notice of pronouncement of judgment to the counsel on
record and on coming to know about the same through the
counsel for the respondent No.5, the petitioners have chosen to
challenge the same by filing this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
though the documents filed on record contained 2019 pages in
four volumes, the Tribunal has not considered any of the same
and has copied from the ex-parte judgment passed on
13.09.2019 in CTA No.25 of 2018. Therefore, according to him,
there is no application of mind by the Tribunal and it is liable to
be set aside. It is further submitted that the petitioners have
also challenged the supersession order dated 13.04.2017.
TMD,J
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated
their submissions made in the writ affidavit.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5
submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous as the
term of the Managing Committee has already expired in the year
2020 itself. It is submitted that the present writ petition is only
against the order of supersession and not against the
proceedings under Section 51 of the Act and therefore, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also
submitted that an enquiry under Section 51 of the TCS Act was
initiated by the Registrar of his own motion and the Inquiry
Officer has conducted the enquiry holding the petitioners as
responsible and therefore, the supersession order is in
accordance with law.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however,
submitted that since the supersession order was on the basis of
the inquiry report under Section 51 and the said inquiry report
also entails further action against the petitioners, the writ
TMD,J
petition has not become infructuous and it is liable to be
adjudicated.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the
attention of this Court to the ex-parte order of the Tribunal
dated 13.09.2019 and also the order dated 31.01.2020, to
demonstrate that both the orders are same word to word and
according to him, it is clear non-application of mind by the
Tribunal.
13. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the order under
challenge in this writ petition is the order of supersession dated
13.04.2017 and also the order of the Tribunal in upholding the
supersession in CTA No.25 of 2018. Since there is no challenge
to the order under Section 51 of the TCS Act in this writ petition
and the term of the petitioners had already expired while the
appeal was pending with the Tribunal, this Court is of the
opinion that this writ petition has become infructuous and any
decision on the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the
respondent No.3 and the Tribunal would only be an academic
exercise.
TMD,J
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 21.01.2025
bak
