Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Katuri Venkateswara Rao And Ors. vs Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Appellate ... on 3 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)ALD808, 2002(1)ALT590, 2002 A I H C 774, (2002) 1 ANDHLD 808 (2002) 1 ANDH LT 590, (2002) 1 ANDH LT 590
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan
JUDGMENT Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 5 and Mr. K. Rajanna representing Mr. K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4.
2. The writ appeal is directed against an order dated 27th November, 2001 passed by a teamed single Judge of this Court in WP No. 14006 of 2000 dismissing the writ petition and affirming the orders passed by the first respondent herein, the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal.
3. The writ petition was filed challenging the orders dated 25-7-2000 passed by the first respondent herein i.e., the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal in OA Nos. 105 to 112, 115 and 117 of 1999.
4. We have perused both the orders passed by the learned single Judge and also the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal.
5. The first appellant herein is the husband of the 3rd appellant and the father of appellants 2, 4 and 5. He is now holding the post of the President of the 3rd respondent-Cooperative Society. During the period from 1993 to 1996 also he was the President of the Society. During that period all the appellants herein had availed of crop and tractor loans. As they had allegedly failed to repay the loans obtained, the competent authority under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 ('the Act' for brevity) initiated proceedings against them and issued certificates under Section 71 of the Act, pursuant to which execution proceedings were instituted and notice of attachment of properties dated 11-7-1998 were issued. Challenging the said notices, the appellants filed WP 19712 of 1998 and obtained stay of all further proceedings in the execution proceedings. However, the writ petition was withdrawn later. And appeals were filed before the 1st respondent-Tribunal herein.
6. It is seen from the record that the 1st appellant filed OAs. 107, 108 and 112 of 1999 challenging the orders and decree in case No. 35/98-99 dated 17-7-1998; the 2nd appellant filed OAs. 105, 106, 109 and 111 of 1999 seeking to set aside the orders and decree in case Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 25 of 1998-99 respectively; the 3rd appellant filed OA 110 of 1999 against the orders passed in Case No. 20 of 1997-98 dated 8-1-1998; the 4th appellant filed OA 117 of 1999 seeking to set aside the orders passed in Case No. 21 of 1997-98 dated 8-1-1998 by the 2nd respondent herein; and the 5th appellant filed OA 115 of 1999 challenging the orders passed in case No. 80 of 1997-98 dated 8-1-1998.
7. The appeals were filed on several grounds contending that the awards were passed contrary to law, that they were not given opportunity in the enquiry proceedings under Section 71 and also in the execution proceedings and that the 2nd respondent herein has failed to take into consideration the No dues Certificates issued by the Secretary, the 4th respondent herein. According to the appellants, they were kept in dark during the enquiry proceedings and that the impugned proceedings were issued behind their back. It was also contended that they had discharged the entire amounts of loans and obtained No dues Certificates from the Secretary, the 4th respondent herein. According to them, at the time of repayment of the amount, the Secretary reported that the receipt-books were not available with him, that he had handed over the records, receipt books etc., to the auditor and that, therefore, he had issued only No dues Certificates instead of receipts after repayment of the loans by the appellants. It was further contended that the respondents never summoned them before conducting enquiry under Section 71 of the Cooperative Societies Act and that they were also not furnished with copies of the awards. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended before the learned Tribunal that the appellants did not clear the loan amounts paid to them by the Society, that they had participated in the enquiry proceedings and that during the enquiry proceedings it was not brought to the notice of the respondents that the 4th respondent had issued any No dues Certificates. According to respondents, there was no procedure in the Bye-laws of the 3rd respondent-Society to issue such No dues Certificates in evidence of repayment of loan dues. And necessarily a receipt shall have to be issued in receipt of repayment of loans. If really there are any repayments made by the appellants, according to the respondents, they should be supported by proper receipts. It was also contended by the respondents that the appeals were barred by limitation.
8. Although, separate appeals were filed before the learned Tribunal as already stated by us above, since the questions raised in the appeals were common, the learned Tribunal formulated four points for determination, which are common in all appeals. Point No. 1 relates to the question as to whether the appeals were barred by limitation. The 2nd point relates to the violation of the principles of natural justice before passing of the awards against the appellants for recovery of the loans. Point No. 3 relates to discharge of the loan amount by obtaining No dues Certificates and point No. 4 relates to the prayer in regard to setting aside of the impugned decrees passed against the appellants. The Tribunal answered point No. 1 against the appellants and held that all the appeals were barred by limitation. Point Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were considered together and the Tribunal held that in the absence of any material in regard to the discharge of the loan, the case of the appellants that No dues Certificates were a conclusive proof for payment is not at all tenable. The Tribunal, therefore, held that there is absolutely no legal and justifiable ground at all to decide the matter in favour of the appellants and to upset the impugned Certificates issued by the competent authority under Section 71 of the Act. It is further observed that the appellants having participated in the proceedings and contested the same cannot now contend that they were not afforded with a reasonable opportunity before passing of the impugned certificates. The Tribunal also held that by way of filing of the appeals before the Tribunal the appellants had made an attempt to prolong the period of time for repayment. In the result, all the appeals were dismissed with costs.
9. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners had, upon payment of necessary Court Fee in respect of all the five of them, preferred the Writ Petition, which, as already noticed above, is also dismissed by the learned single Judge for the cogent and convincing reasons recorded in his order. The learned Judge also held that this Court was not, under Article 226 of the Constitution, constituted an appellate court over the first respondent Tribunal and that the analysis of the Tribunal and its conclusions are not vitiated by any error calling for interference.
10. Mr. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the appellants reiterated the contentions that were advanced before the learned first respondent Tribunal and also before the learned single Judge. We are of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned Cooperative Appellate Tribunal and the order of the learned single judge are perfectly in order and do not call for any interference by this Court in this appeal. It is seen from the records that during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court issued a direction to the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- pending disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the said sum has also been paid and that it was adjusted towards the discharge of the loan amount availed of by the appellants herein from the 3rd respondent Society.
11. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are ready and willing to pay the entire balance amount of the loans together with interest but at the same time it is also submitted that the delayed payment shall not be treated by the respondents as a disqualification as per Rule 24 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964.
12. As already noticed, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants for recovery of the loan amounts advanced to them for crop and tractor loans. The 1st appellant who is now the President of the 3rd respondent-Society and the other appellants contested the proceedings stating that they had already paid the amount to the Secretary and discharged the loan and that, therefore, no amount was due by them to the Society. In support of their contention they placed reliance on the No dues certificates alleged to have been issued by the Secretary, 4th respondent herein. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said contention and upheld the orders passed by the competent authority. The net result is that the loan amount advanced by the Society to the appellants is still due and payable by them. As already noticed, the appellants have also paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/-.
13. It is represented by Shri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the appellants that in realisation of the loan amounts advanced by the respondents, they are taking coercive steps by conducting auction/sale of the immovable properties belonging to the appellants and that the auction/sale is scheduled to be conducted tomorrow i.e., 4-1-2002. He further submitted that if the auction/sale is not stayed, the attached properties would be sold and that the appellants would be put to irreparable damage.
14. In view of the request made by the appellants Counsel to the effect that the appellants are ready and willing to pay the entire outstanding amount of the crop and tractor loans together with the specified interest, we are of the opinion that an opportunity must be given to the appellants to repay the balance amount of the loans together with interest. Further, we are of the prima facie opinion that if a person pays the amount determined by the Arbitrator/ Authorised Officer within three months from the date of final order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal or this Court, the same does not amount to default for the purpose of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. We, accordingly direct the Sales Officer and Arbitrator, the second respondent herein to postpone the auction/ sale of the properties by four weeks from tomorrow. We also direct the appellants to pay the entire outstanding loan amount together with the stipulated interest for all the loans availed of by them from the 3rd respondent-Society within four weeks from today, failing which, the 2nd respondent Sales Officer and Arbitrator would be at liberty to proceed further with the auction/ sale of the attached properties and then adjust the sale proceeds towards the discharge of the loan amounts. The respondents have no objection in receiving the money, which is due by the appellants.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and also the orders passed by the first respondent Co-operative Tribunal are affirmed. The appeal is disposed with the aforesaid directions.
16. Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 5 shall forthwith inform the respondent No. 2, the Sales Officer and Arbitrator to postpone the sale by four weeks.