Dismissed

Baley Venkayamma, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC21 Oct 2010WP/17786/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking certiorari and declaration against respondents in a cooperative society regarding alleged fabricated loan documents. The court held that the dispute involved disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication by the proper forum, not this court under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitioner is directed to work out appropriate remedy before the proper forum; no costs.

Baley Venkayamma, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 17786 OF 2003

¶3

Dated: 21.10.2010

¶4

Between: Baley Venkayamma ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., rep by its Secretary and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following :

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17786 OF 2003

¶6

ORDER :

¶7

The petitioner herein claims to be a member of the respondent 5- Society. It is alleged that the respondents 5 and 6 had fabricated the documents to show that the petitioner had availed two loans and took steps for recovery of the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner. This writ petition is filed seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to the said loans bearing file Nos.391/OF, dated 28.09.1989 and 1136/OF, dated 27.01.1994 and to declare the action of the respondents 5 and 6, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to the respondents to repay the entire amounts of Rs.77,820/- with accrued interest at 18% per annum from 28.09.1989 which was extracted from her.

¶8

On behalf of the respondents 4 and 6, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Special Cadre Deputy Registrar/Officer on Special Duty, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Eluru denying all the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the petitioner made a representation making the very same allegations and the said representation was forwarded by the 2^nd respondent to the 4^th respondent for enquiry. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted by giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to prove the allegations in her representations. Having found that the allegations made in the representation were false, a report was already submitted to the higher authorities.

¶9

Heard both sides.

¶10

The dispute raised by the petitioner apparently involves various disputed questions of fact, which cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶11

Constitution of India. Hence, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law before the proper forum for redressal of her grievance, if any. No costs.

¶12

____________ Date: 21.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd

Baley Venkayamma, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baley Venkayamma, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Dharma Singh Vs v.Mohan Rao

P. Prakash Vs The District Collector

Pathuri Satyanaraya Vs Sri Tiwari

Sri Tallapaka Annamacharya Educational Society, Vs Southern Regional Committee National Council For Teacher

Miss Anshu Agarwal, Vs The Deputy Registrar/Liquidator

Kum.Palle Naga Chaitanya Vs Commissioner.