Petitioner challenged demands for balance dues from a One Time Settlement. Court referred matter to Respondent No.2 for speaker order after hearing.
Matter referred to Respondent No.2 for speaker order and personal hearing within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36007 of 2014
Dated: 26.11.2014
Between: Shakeera Begum .. Petitioner and The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. M. Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: A.G.P. for Co-operation Counsel for respondents 2&3: Mr. Aravind Maturi
The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the grievance that despite the alleged One Time Settlement under which the petitioner has paid Rs.1,46,000/-, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been demanding the balance out of Rs.3,07,901/- allegedly due from the petitioner.
The petitioner pleaded that one Akula Srinivasulu, who is the ex-secretary of respondent No.4 society, has misused his position and misappropriated the amounts belonging to respondent No.4, by stealthily using the name of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and getting loans sanctioned in their names without their knowledge. The petitioner has further averred that on coming to know about the fraud played by the said Srinivasulu, she has approached respondent No.2 with a request to allow her to settle the alleged liability by extending the facility of One Time Settlement and that, accordingly, through eight separate demand drafts obtained in the months of May, June and July 2012, she has paid a sum of Rs.1,46,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the settlement of dues, respondents 3 and 4 have been seeking to proceed against her for recovery of the balance amount out of Rs.3,07,901/-.
I have heard Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Inasmuch as the petitioner has pleaded settlement of the dues and is stated to have made a representation on 18.11.2014 to respondents 3 and 4, it is appropriate that respondent No.2 shall consider the grievance of the petitioner as reflected from her representation dated 18.11.2014 and in the light of the facts recorded hereinabove. He shall give an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by issuing a notice and pass a speaking order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.45070 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
26th November, 2014 IBL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner can be proceeded against for recovery of balance dues despite alleged settlement of duties.
Shakeera Begum
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
