Smt.Gummadi Ratna Kumari v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ongole, Prakasam District & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
the impugned order, and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly
Provisions considered
Judgment
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.R.Vara Prasad Representing Sri K.Joseph Counsel for the respondent No.1: G.P for Cooperation The Court made the following : Order: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.494/2009-B, dated 18.08.2009, of respondent No.1 whereby he has confirmed the sale of property bearing D.No.35-4- 58, Ward No.1, Block No.RTS No.842/1A of Seetharampuram, Ongole in Prakasam District. The petitioner availed loan from respondent No.2 and failed to repay the same in full. An Award bearing No.89/2004-05 was passed against the petitioner under Section 62 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, the Act), for recovery of the loan amount along with interest. According to the petitioner, she paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 03.07.2007 and that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.39,000/- was adjusted towards the interest. As the petitioner failed to pay the balance loan amount even after passing of the Award, respondent No.2 has filed E.P.No.49/2005-2006 for sale of the above mentioned property belonging to her. In pursuance of the order for sale of the property, the sale was held on 04.04.2009 in which respondent No.3 has offered Rs.9,26,000/- as sale consideration, and the sale was accordingly confirmed by respondent No.1 vide his order dated
Operative part
18.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more reasons than one. In the first place, the petitioner has failed to invoke the remedy of appeal under Section 76 of the Act against the order passed by respondent No.1. Secondly, the petitioner has kept quiet for nearly three years after the sale was confirmed in favour of respondent No.3, and approached this Court at her leisure. The petitioner failed to give any reasons whatsoever for not approaching this Court within a reasonable time. The law is well settled that the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court will not be exercised in favour of a person who slept over his rights for unduly long time (see State of Madhya Pradesh v Bhailal Bhai [1] , Tilokchand Motichand v H.B.Munshi [2] , P.S.Sadasivaswamy v State of Tamil Nadu [3] and Roshan Lal v International Airport Authority [4] ). Even on merits, the petitioner failed to make out any case because she has allowed the Award to become final, and except disputing the correctness of the quantum of the amount and raising a plea which remained unsubstantiated that the property worth Rs.20.00 lakhs was sold for Rs.9,26,000/-, no evidence in support thereof has been filed before this Court. For the above reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. As a sequel the dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.30789 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is ______________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) also dismissed.
06.08.2012 [1] [2] [3] [4] AIR 1964 SC 1006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the impugned order, and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 — s. 62.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 06 Aug 2012. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
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.