Allowed

G.V. Rajendra Prasad, v. The Commissioner of Cooperative and

Telangana HC24 Mar 2011WP/28333/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a sale certificate issued under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act for loan recovery. The court found the issuance violated natural justice as the notice of hearing was not properly served. Consequently, the certificate was set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to file objections.

What did the court decide?

Sale certificate dated 23.05.1997 set aside; Petitioner permitted to file objections within two weeks.

G.V. Rajendra Prasad, Vs The Commissioner of… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.28333 of 2007

¶6

Between:

¶7

G.V. Rajendra Prasad

¶8

..... Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commissioner of Cooperative and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad & others.

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao

¶13

Counsel for respondents 1-3: GP for Cooperation Counsel for respondent No.4: Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.28333 of 2007

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the borrower of loan from respondent No.4. As he allegedly failed to repay the loan, respondent No.4 moved respondent No.2 for a certificate for recovery of the loan amount under Section 71 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Respondent No.2 accordingly issued certificate dated 23.05.1997. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that on the same day, on which the sale certificate was purported to have been issued, a notice of hearing was served on him at 4.00 p.m. and that therefore issue of such certificate is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Subsequently, the petitioner engaged himself in prolonged correspondence with respondent Nos.2 and 4. However, in March, 2006, there was an attempt to execute the sale certificate, which propelled the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.

¶19

Though there is enormous delay in the petitioner approaching this Court in order to question the sale certificate, the record produced by the learned Standing counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 4 does not show that the sale certificate was ever served on the petitioner. Further, a perusal of the record reveals that an attender has made an endorsement on 18.03.1997 to the effect that as the petitioner was not available at his house, the notice of hearing was affixed to his door. However, on the right hand side of the same page, there is an endorsement by the petitioner with signatures subscribed at three places, one below the other showing that notice of hearing was received on 23.05.1997 at 4.00 p.m. From these facts, it has to be necessarily held that the petitioner was denied proper opportunity to

¶20

put-forth his case before the certificate in question was issued by respondent No.2 on 23.05.1997.

¶21

Though in ordinary course, this Court would have thrown away the Writ Petition on the ground of laches, in the absence of any material to show that the sale certificate was served on the petitioner at any point of time, the fact of ten years delay in questioning the sale certificate, cannot be made basis for holding that the Writ Petition suffers from laches. As the petitioner was denied proper opportunity in the proceedings for issuance of sale certificate, which was not served on him, it needs to be held that the sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No.4 cannot be enforced against the petitioner. Accordingly, sale certificate dated 23.05.1997 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file his objections, if any within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On expiry of the above stipulated time, respondent No.2 shall be free to pass a fresh order, after considering the objections, if any filed by the petitioner.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶23

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP No.37027 of 2007 and WVMP.No.2467 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.03.2011 ES

G.V. Rajendra Prasad, v. The Commissioner of Cooperative and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.V. Rajendra Prasad, v. The Commissioner of Cooperative and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Kumara Swamy Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

R.Reddi Krishna, Vs The Vayalpad Grampanchayat

Pilla Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its District Collector

S.K. Khairun Bee Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

K. Sridevi Vs The Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies

U.Naga Raju Vs The District Collector, Kurnool