Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Rajeswara Rao vs Secretary, Co-Operative Department, ... on 28 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD383, 2002(2)ALT175
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan, I. Venkatanarayana
JUDGMENT Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. Heard Shri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the Department of Co-operation.
2. The writ petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the Surcharge Proceedings dated 30-8-2001, initiated by the 3rd respondent Deputy Registrar, Divisional Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad, West Division against the writ petitioner under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (Act 7 of 1964) and also the final order dated 26-11-2001 passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 21-AA(2) of the Act, and to quash the same and also all further proceedings initiated subsequent to the final order dated 26-11-2001 as illegal.
3. The learned single Judge, after hearing the respective Counsel appeared on behalf of the parties, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant in view of the statutory appeal available to the writ petitioner-appellant under Section 76 of the Act by way of alternative remedy. However, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge, has made certain observations on merits of the case. Aggrieved by the said observations, the present writ appeal is filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the learned single Judge, while relegating the appellant to take recourse to the statutory appeal which is an alternative remedy ought not to have been recorded any findings on merits of the impugned order of disqualification. We see merit and substance and force in the said contention.
5. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, while remitting the matter, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and record findings which have the effect of foreclosing an independent adjudication of the matter by the statutory appellate authority.
6. Therefore, while confirming the order of the learned single Judge in regard to the availability of the alternative remedy under Section 76 of the Act, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal CTA 19 of 2002, stated to have already been preferred by the appellant, uninfluenced by any of the observations made or findings recorded by the learned single Judge while dismissing the appeal. The learned Tribunal may dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the impugned proceedings.
7. The appeal is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.