WRIT PET IT ION No. 19730 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERAT ION T he Court made the following
ORDER:
Operative part
Proceedings under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) are said to have been initiated against the fifth respondent, on behalf of the fourth respondent-society, before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudur, Nellore District, the second respondent herein. An item of immovable property was attached. The father of the fifth respondent, by name Sri Nasina Ramanaiah, raised an objection, before the Assistant Registrar/Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer-cum-Sale Officer, respondent herein, that the attached property belongs to him. Through the order, dated 05.06.2007, the third respondent rejected the claim. It is represented that two days earlier thereto, Nasina Ramanaiah died. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the sons and the third petitioner is his daughter. They challenge the order, dated 05.06.2007, passed by the third respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The objection raised by the father of the petitioners was almost in the form of a claim petition under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. Rule 51(21)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, is akin to the said provision. Though a semblance of discussion was undertaken by the third respondent, it was almost summary in nature. The petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 76 of the Act before the Cooperative Tribunal. This Court is of the view that the petitioners can not only put forward their contentions, but also adduce evidence, before the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal against the impugned order. To protect their interest, the operation of the impugned order is stayed for a period of three (3) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.09.2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (B/o)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 — s. 60; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.