The Bhel Executive Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, v. S. Tej Kumar

Telangana HC3 Feb 2025WA/132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal allowed; Section 76(3) of Co-operative Societies Act; condonation of delay; Tribunal's power to admit appeal after 60 days; Single Judge's dismissal set aside; matter remitted for hearing on merits; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18-11-2024 set aside; Writ Petition No. 29459 of 2014 restored to its original number and remitted to the learned Single Judge for hearing on merits at the earliest. ¶¶51

The Bhel Executive Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Vs S. Tej Kumar — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶2

i; I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY,THE THIRD^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE^{ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOYPAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE RENUKAYARA}

¶7

WRITA PPEAL NO:^{132OF 2025}

¶8

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters Patent Filed Against the order} OateO ib-tt-2024^{passedin Writ Petition No 2945912014onthe file of the High} Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The BHEL Executive Cooperative^{Housing SocietyLtd, TBC No310(O.l-d)'} TBC No 715^(New), HIG^{Phase l,'Madhavanagar,BHEL,} Ramachand rapu^{ram,' Hyd6rab ad 502 032, Rep by its Secretary}

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

1.S-TeiKumar.S/o.SVNAppaRao,Aged68years'Occupation'Retired,Rl/o HiC 5eO, Phase l, BHEL,^{il'amachandiapuram, Hyderabad 5o2o32'}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶15

Govemment of Telangana,^{represented by its Principal sgcrelary, Agriculture} - anO Cooperation DepZrtment, secretariat, Hyderabad 5OO 022

¶16

The Arbitrator/Deputy^{Registrar/ Divisional cooperative officer,Hyderabad} - We* oivision ll Fiooi, Laimi Estates, J N Road Abids, Hyderabad

¶17

Y V Subba Rao, S/o,^{late Y Dasaratha Ramaiah, aged B0 years, FUo HIG 5'} BHEL, Ramachandrapuram,^{Hyderabad5O2 O32}

¶18

Y V B Prasad, S/o^{Y Narayana Rao' aged 69 years, R/o HIG 6, BHEL'} Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad^{502 032}

¶19

Smt. G Saraswathi,^{Wo G Manohara Rao, Aged 65 years, R/o HIG 7' BHEL'} Ramachandrapuram,^{Hyderabad 502032}

¶20

Sridhar Pillai, S/o^{Mahadeva Pillai,Aged74 years, F/o HIG 3' BHEL'} Ramachandrapuram,^{Hyderabad5O2 O32}

¶21

G Bapuji, S/o G^{Sree Ramulu.aged^69^ye^ars'Rl/o HIG 9, BHEL,} Ramac6andrapuram,^{Hyderabad5O2 o32}

¶22

g.GVenkateswaraRao,S/olateNarsimha,Aged66years,Ri'/oHlG8/A,BHEL' Ramachandrapuram,^{Hyderabad5O2 O32}

¶23

¶24

10.D Madusudana Rao, Sio. Balakishan Rao, Aged 76^years, R/o HIG^{12, BHEL,} Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad 502 O32

¶25

1'l .Voksoha Bhatt, S/o P K Bhaft, Aged 7'l^{years,Rl/o HIG 13, BHEL,} Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad 502 O32

¶26

12.K K M Raju, S/o P Narsimha Raju, Aged 75^years,Fl/o HIG'15, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram Hyderabad 5O2 032

¶27

13.S V Manohara Rao, S/o Narayana Rao, Aged 76^{years, R/o} HIG^{16, BHEL,} Ramachandrapuram Hyderabad 5O2 O32

¶28

14.The Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad, Rep. its Secretary

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend/stay the impugned^{judgment passed} by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. W.P. No.29459 of 2014 dated 18-11-2024.

¶32

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI V. RAVI KIRAN RAO SENIOR COUNSEL REP., FOR SRI V ROHITH

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent nO.2: Smt. B. MOHANA REDDY GP FOR COOPERATION

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4,5&10 to 13: SRI C. SRI HARI PRASAO

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 9: SRI M.VENKAT DIVAKAR

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent NOs.3&14: --

¶38

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶39

¶40

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING^{CHIEF JUSTICESUJOY PAT'L}

¶41

AND

¶42

THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICE RENUKA YARA}

¶43

WRIT APPEAL No.132^of2o25

¶44

JUDGMENT^(Per the^{Hon'blethe Acting Chief JusticeSttjogPaul)}

¶45

Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor,^{iearned counsel forthe} appellant; Sri V.^{Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel represents} Sri V. Rohith, learned^{counselfor respondent No' 1; Smt' B'} Mohana Reddy,^{learned GovernmentPleader for Co-operation, for} respondent No.2; Sri C.^{Sri Hari Prasad,Iearned counsel for} respondent Nos.4, 5^{and 10 to 13 and Sri M' Venkat Divakar'} learned counsel^{for respondentNos.6 to 9.}

¶46

2 With the consent,^hnallYheard.

¶47

Learned counsel for^{the parties fairly submittedthat the} delay was condoned^{by the Co-operativeTribunal on 23'12'2OlO'} Learned Single Judge^{could have decided whethersuch} condonation of delay^{is founded. uponfurnishing "sufficient cause"'} However, it is agreed that^{in the teeth of Section 76(3) which} prescribes that "Ang appeal under^{sub-section(1) shall, subject to} the other prouisions of this^{Act, be preferredttithin sirtg dags from} thedateofcommunicationtotheappellontofthedecision,refusalor order complained of^{but the Tribunal mog admit an oppeal preferred} after the said^period of^{sixtg days' tJ'it is satisfiedtlwt the appellant}

¶48

\ \

¶49

¶50

has sufficient^jause for not preferring the appeo.l uithirt, the said period', it was not correct to say that there was no power: with the Tribunal to condone the delay. Since the Writ Petition *a" d".id"d only on the gr,rund of condonation of delay, it is agreecl that the impugned order of learned Single Judge may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the learned Single Juclge for hearing in accordance u,.it h law.

¶51

4 In vieu' of consensus arrived at, the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 irr ',,V.P.No.29459 of 2Ol4 is set aside. The Writ Petition is restored to ir-s original number. Since the Writ Petitior r is of the 7,ear^{2014, we request the learned Single} Judge to^d ecide the matter at the earliest

¶52