Mohammed Shaik Isa v. The State Of Telangana And 7 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO-THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24338 OF 2020 Betwee n:

1. lr,4ohammed Shaik lSA, S/o.shaik Jamal Aged 58 years, Occu patio n.Agricu lture R/o. H.No,8-333, Neela, Ren.lal lVandal, Nizamabad District.

2. Razia Sultana, W/o.lt4ohammed lsa Aged 50 years, Occu patio n.Agricu ltu re R/o. H. No.8-333, Neela, Renjal Mandal, Nizamabad District.

3. Md tr/oinuddin, S/o.Abdul Qader Aged 49 years, Occupation.Agriculture R/o.21 1 , Neela, Renjal Mandal, Nizamabad District.

4. [t4d Gaffar, S/o.l\rld Ameen Aged 37 years, Occupation.Agriculture R/o.5-85, Neela, Renjal Mandal, Nizamabad District.

5. Shaik Kaleem, S/o.Shaik Rasool Aged 58 years, Occupation.Agriculture R/o. 755, Neela, Renjal tr/andal, Nizamabad District.

6. Bonkanapalli [\4anohar, S/o.tt/adari Aged 36 years, Occupatbn.Agriculture Fl/o.259, Neela, Renial tvlandal, Nizamabad District. ...'E,,.NERS AND The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Co-operation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Commissioner for Co-operation, and Registrar of Co-operalive Societies, the State of Telangana, 3rd Floor, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad The District Collector, Nizamabad District.

The Assistant Registrar/Sale officer, Nizamabad District Cooperative central Bank Ltd(NDCCB) Nizamabad.

The District Co-operative Officer, (DCO) Nizamabad District Co-operative Central Bank Limited (NDCCB) Nizamabad Town and Nizamabad Distrtct The District Chairman, Nizamabad District Co-operative Central Bank Limited Nizamabad Town and Nizamabad District.

The Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society,, Neela, (PACS)Rep.by its l\,4anager/Secreta ry, Neela Village, Renjal l\,4andal, Nizamabad District. lVd lmliyaz, S/o.Not known to the petitioner Chief Executive office(CEO)-Primary Agricult-ural Co-operative Society, Neela, (PACS) Neela Village, Renjal lVlandal, Nizamabad District ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lr,4andamus, to set aside the impugned notices dated 1Bt12t2O2O under SEC 71(1) of The Telangana Co-operative Societies Act 1964 vide 1) Case No 741lLIl2O' 21, 2) Case No 740lLT/20-2'1 , 3) Case No 738/LT/20-21 4) Case No 730/LT/20-21'

5) Case No 714Lf D0-21 6) Case No 739/LT/20-21 issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of its rules and Act of Co-operative society act' 1964 and consequently suspend the impugned notices dated 18.12.2020 under SEC 71(1) of The Telangana Co-operative Socicties Act 1964 vide 1) Case No 741lLf l2021 ,2) Case No 740lLT/20-21, 3) Case No 738/LT/20-2'1 4) Case No 730iLTl20-21,

5) Case No 714Lf l2O-21 6) Case No 739/LT/20-2 1 issued by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition

IA NO 1 0F 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned notices dated 1811212020 under SEC 71(1) of The Telangana Cooperative Societies Act 1 964 vide 1 ) Case No 7 41lLI 120-21, 2) Case No 74O|LTl2O21, 3) Case No 738/LT/20-21 4) Case No 730/LT/20-21,5) Case No 7l4lLTl2O-21 6) Case No 739/LT/20-21 issued by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petitlon Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T. SUJAN KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 8: -- The Gourt made the following: ORDER

') HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.24338 of 2O2O ORDER:

Hcard lcarncd counsel lbr thc petitionors, lcarneci Assistant (lovernment Pleadcr for Cooperation ancl learned Assistant (;overnmen t plcader lor Revenue.

2.

Petitioners are aggrievecl by the notice issued by the Assistant Registrar/Sale Officer_4th respondent on lg.12.2O2O. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that several illegalities have taken place and the Chief Executive Primary Agricultural Co-operative Officer-8fr respondent of the Society, Neela-7tt respondent herein, committed several illegalities including creating false accounts and obtaining loans. petitioners never obtained loans and the loans alleged to have been obtained by the petitioners \ rere actually obtained by the grh respondent. These facts are already on record_ That being so, illegally the impugned noLices are issuecr at rhc instance of 7th respondent and without looking into this aspcct, rhe Assrstant Registrar/Salc Officcr issued impugned notices and the same is ex-lacie illegal. 4.

The notices dated 1g. 12.2O2O are issued under Section 71(i) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 7964 (for short ,the Act'). This provision enables to recover the arrears of any sum advanced. It requires the concerned Society/ Financing Bank/Federal Society to apply to the Sale Officer to issue recovery certificate. On receiving such request, according to the provision in sub-Section (1), the sale orficer is required to cause notice on

J the persons concerRed, who is craimed to have defaurted and after making such enquiry as required, he may issue sare certificate. lrom a reading of this provision, it is clear that a request is made by the Society/ Financing .).

jnUS, whenever, Bank/ Federal Society, alleging that certain amounts due are not paid and have to be recovered, the Sale Officer can issue sale certificate to enable the Society/ Financing Bank/Federal Societv to take further steps to recoup the alleged loss caused to them. Before issuing the certificate, the persons against whom the certificate is sought, have to be put on notice. perforce, since a notice is required to be issued, it implies that the person against whom the notice is issued is entitled to put forth his defence, albeit in thc limited context of whether certificate can be issued or not and on filing objections, the Sale Offlcer is required to enquire into the issue and take a decision. It is not the case of petitioners that 4th respondent is not competent to issue notices. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that the Chief Executive Officer is the actual culprit and proceedings ought to have been issued against him and not to the petitioners. This aspect can also be placed before the Assistant Registrar/gale Officer. Petitioners may have a grievance only if a decision is made by the Assistant Registrar/sale officer to issue certificate of recovery, to work out their remedies. As long as power is available to the Assistant Registrar/ Sale officer who caused notice and when the same is issued in exercise of that power, petitioners can not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interject the process set in motion. in

-1 accordance with the provisions of law. It can not be said that petltioners are remediless if any adverse decision is made. It is always open to the petitioners to raise all pleas available to them including the pleas urged in this writ petition challenging the notices. As the Court is satisfied that the Assistant Registrar/ Saie Officer is competent to jssuc noticcs and in valid exercise of po,"ver vested tn him under Section 71 (11 of the Act notices are issued, the Court is not inciinecl to entertain the writ petition at this stage. 7.

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies, as available in law. Petitioners are entitled to raise all objections as availab.le in law in response to the impugned notices and on filing such objections, the Assistant Registrar/ Sale Officer is directed to examine the same and take a decision assigning due reasons in support of the decision strictly in compliance with Sectio n T I of the Act and communicate the same to the petitioners. petitioners are granted two more weeks time from today to file their objections in response to the impLlgnecl notjces Pending miscellaneous petitions shall starncl closcd.

SD/-V,SUDHA ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER To, The Assistant Registrar/Sale officer, Nizamabad District Cooperative central Bank Ltd(NDCCB) Nizamabad.

One CC to Sri T Sujan Kumar Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP For Cooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies 2.

3.

4.

5.

IVBC

HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212020 \J \ a JAt{ c

ORDER

WP.No.24338 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rttr) ,b ,