Smt. Penmetsa Suryakanthamma v. Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited

Smt. Penmetsa Suryakanthamma .. Petitioner vs. Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary Penumantra. .. Respondent In C.R.P.No.224 of 2011: Bhupatiraju Ramalinga Raju .. Petitioner vs. Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary Penumantra. .. Respondent In C.R.P.No.225 of 2011: Smt. Penmetsa Suryakanthamma .. Petitioner vs. Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary Penumantra. .. Respondent In C.R.P.No.226 of 2011: Smt. Bhupathiraju Naga Venkata Padmavathi .. Petitioner vs. Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary Penumantra. .. Respondent In C.R.P.No.444 of 2011: Smt. Bhupathiraju Naga Venkata Padmavathi .. Petitioner vs. Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary Penumantra. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.106, 112, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226 & 444 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER : Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, all these Revision Petitions are heard together and decided by this common order. Penumantra Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited, the respondent in all these Revision Petitions, filed applications under Section 71 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the revision petitioners for recovery of amounts allegedly the society. Pursuant thereto, Senior Inspector/Arbitrator/Sale Officer, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Eluru, who is delegated with the powers of the Registrar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Registrar’) initiated enquiry and issued notices to the revision petitioners. Having appeared through their counsel before the Registrar, the revision petitioners filed their written statements contesting the claim of the society. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, the Registrar by separate orders while negativing the stand taken by the revision petitioners issued certificates under Section 71 of the Act for recovery of the amounts claimed by the society. The said certificates issued under Section 71 of the Act are under challenge in these Revision petitions, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders which were passed by the Registrar without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under law and without considering the request of the petitioners to give an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the society are arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the same are liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In support of his submission that the impugned orders which were passed without conducting any enquiry are illegal, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in GREEN DOT AGENCIES v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES[1]. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent society vehemently contended that in view of the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 76 of the Act before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, the Revisions are not maintainable under law. On merits, it is contended that since the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act is a special enactment which has its own provisions, it cannot be held that providing an opportunity to the petitioners to cross- examine the witnesses of the society is mandatory and therefore the impugned orders cannot be said to be vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon R. ANAND KUMAR v. CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL[2]. A perusal of the orders under Revision shows that the request of the revision petitioners to allow them to cross-examine the witnesses of the society was rejected following the decision of this Court in HARI KRISHAN SINGH v. B. NARAYANA[3] and PALETI SIVARAMA KRISHNAIAH v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.C. CANAL, SATTENAPALLI[4] wherein it was held that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable only where no procedure is prescribed in a special enactment. It is true that under Section 71 of the Act the Registrar is required to make such enquiry as he deems fit before issuing a certificate for recovery of debts. However there is no other specific provision either under the Act or under the Rules made thereunder requiring the Registrar to make enquiry following the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. There can be no dispute that the Registrar, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 71 of the Act, is acting as Civil Court. However in the absence of any specific provision under the Act or the Rules made thereunder, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code cannot automatically be made applicable for exercise of power conferred on the Registrar under Section 71 of the Act. It is also relevant to note that Section 72 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act though provided that the Registrar shall be deemed to be a civil court, it is only for a limited purpose of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that 12 years is the period of limitation for execution of a decree and that the period of limitation begins to run when the decree becomes enforceable. In the light of the provisions noticed above, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Registrar without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses of the society is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In GREEN DOT AGENCIES v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (1 supra), Rule 50 (3) (c) of the Act which prescribed specific procedure for service of summons was not complied with and therefore the enquiry was held to be vitiated. The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts and has no application to the case on hand. The next question that arises for consideration is that whether the Revision Petitions are maintainable under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Admittedly an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 76 of the Act against the order made under Section 71 of the Act. Such appeal lies before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal. The law is well-settled that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 is warranted only where the order of the inferior court suffered from jurisdictional error or where it was made in gross violation of principles of natural justice, or where it suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. This Court in appropriate case will also exercise the said jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of the Court or to cure gross miscarriage of justice. As expressed above, the orders under Revision cannot be held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice nor they suffered form jurisdictional error. Thus none of the grounds could be made out to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence in my considered opinion the Revision Petitions under Article 227 are not maintainable. However this shall not preclude the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 76 of the Act. Keeping in view that pending these Revision Petitions the operation of the impugned certificates under Section 71 of the Act remained suspended, to meet the ends of justice, there shall be a direction to maintain status quo obtaining as on today in all respects for a period of four weeks from today. All the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No _____________ G. ROHINI, J. costs. Dt. 01.04.2011 Note:- CC by tomorrow. (B/O) [1] 2007 (6) ALT 423 [2] 1989 (3) ALT 401 [3] 1969 (2) APLJ 290 (D.B.) [4] AIR 1978 AP 389