V.Srinivasa Reddy v. The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, 7th floor, Chandravihar, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad & Ors.

Since these Writ Petitions raise common issues of fact and law, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioners are the borrowers of respondent No.2. As they have failed to repay the loan amounts, respondent No.2 filed claim petitions for recovery of the loan amounts before respondent No.1 under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘1995 Act’). Nearly after five years of filing the said petitions, the petitioners have filed interlocutory applications raising preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 on the premise that under Section 37 of the Act, the claim for recovery of money advanced as loans does not fall within the ambit of the disputes covered by the said provision. Respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit opposing the said applications. By the impugned orders, respondent No.1 has rejected the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners and held that the claim petitions are maintainable and that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.

At the hearing Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No.1 has committed a serious error in not properly interpreting the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. He further submitted that unlike Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, the provisions of Section 37 of the Act do not vest jurisdiction in respondent No.1 to entertain the claims for recovery of money. In my opinion, there was no warrant for respondent No.1 to decide the issue as a preliminary issue at the instance of the petitioners, who filed the applications five years after the filing of the claim petitions. No provision of law is cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that if such a preliminary objection is raised at any stage, the same shall be decided first by the Tribunal before adjudicating the claim petitions on merits. As found by respondent No.1, obviously these petitions were filed the petitioners to prolong litigation and to avoid adjudication on merits.

This Court while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions at this stage merely because the petitioners’ applications raising preliminary objections have been rejected. The petitioners are entitled to question the findings given by respondent No.1 under the impugned orders in the event the adjudication on the main O.Ps. goes against them. Dismissal of the Writ Petitions at this stage would not prejudice the petitioners’ right to question the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 in proceedings that may be initiated by them against the final adjudication of the main O.Ps by respondent No.1. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petitions, WPMP.Nos.31385, 31388 and 31389 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01.10.2010