AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 The prayer sought in the writ petition reads as under:
"... to issue a suitable writ, order or proceeding more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to I.A. No.87/2020 in CTA No.22 of 2020 Dt.23.04.2021 in suspending the surcharge orders in RC.No.2580/2015/JR/SA/DCCB-NLG-7 Dt. 21.11.2019 on the file of the Cooperative Tribunal Hyderabad and declare the same as ultra vires and consequently quash the order, orders in RC No.2580/2015/JR/SA/DCCB-NLG-7, dt.21.11.2019 on the file of the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
Heard Sri R. Guru Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation.
This writ petition is filed challenging the interlocutory order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal in I.A.No.87 of 2020 in C.T.A.No.22 of 2020 dated 23.04.2021.
Respondent No.7 filed C.T.A.No.22 of 2020 challenging the surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act, 1964') dated 21.11.2019. In the said C.T.A., he has filed I.A.No.87 of 2020 praying to grant stay of further proceedings. After considering the submissions of the respective parties, the Tribunal, having found prima facie that the order impugned therein was vitiated on account of denial of opportunity of hearing, granted interim suspension.
Though learned counsel for the petitioner sought to take through the surcharge proceedings and the report of enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, 1964 to contend that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the material on record, the Court is not inclined to go into those aspects as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal.
It is not disputed that the Tribunal is competent to entertain the appeal filed by respondent No.7 and consider the said appeal. Pending consideration of the appeal, the Tribunal is also competent to pass interlocutory orders. From the prima facie reading of the order, it appears that the Tribunal considered the issue in detail and has come to the prima facie conclusion that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the appellant therein and exercised its discretion in granting interlocutory orders of stay of surcharge proceedings.
When the Tribunal is competent to entertain the appeal and pass interlocutory orders and the order is supported by reasons, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the interlocutory stage and interfere with the well considered order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that crores of rupees were misappropriated by other employees and if surcharge proceedings are not continued, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner - bank. This is a matter which requires deeper consideration by the Tribunal.
Further, enforcement of surcharge proceedings pending consideration of the appeal would mean that the authorities can take penal consequences against respondent No.7. Having regard to the consequences that follow and having found prima facie case, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant suspension of the surcharge proceedings. It cannot be said that balance of convenience is not in favour of respondent No.7 for the Tribunal to suspend the order. Lifting of the said suspension order would only result in reviving the surcharge proceedings.
Thus, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to persuade the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the appeal expeditiously. The Tribunal shall afford due opportunity to both parties and consider the respective submissions uninfluenced by the observations made in the interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.