Swamy Goud plea dismissed by Hyderabad High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, June 20: Justice A. Rajasekhar Reddy of Hyderabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition by former president of Telangana Non Gazetted Officers Association and MLC K. Swamy Goud and another seeking to declare the enquiry by the District Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad against them as illegal.

The District Cooperative Officer has conducted an enquiry into alleged gross violations in allotment of house sites and misappropriation of funds by the Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Society headed by Mr Swamy Goud. The DCO has submitted the report to the district joint collector.

Aggrieved by the enquiry, Mr Swamy Goud moved the court contending that the secretary to Cooperation department has no jurisdiction to order an inquiry under the provisions of AP Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 and the enquiry initiated contrary to the provisions of Section 29 of the Act.

The petitioners also contended that the enquiry, which was initiated has to be completed within a period of 120 days but it has taken more than 180 days and therefore enquiry has been lapsed and the report submitted by the officer becomes null and void.

After hearing the arguments and verifying the facts of the case, the judge refuted the contentions of the petitioner that non application of mind by the enquiry officer to the provisions of the Act.

The judge pointed out that the petitioners waited till completion of the enquiry and then moved the court and before moving the court they also moved the Cooperative Tribunal against the enquiry.

While expressing his disinclinations to entertain the petition, the judge observed that the petitioners can agitate their grievances before the Tribunal.
and the Tribunal can decide the matter without any prejudice to  the observation made by the High Court.

The pleadings in the writ petitions and also in the application moved before the tribunal is identical and similar.
The judge made it clear that as the petitioners already invoked alternative remedy before the Tribunal it was not open for them to move the High court on same grounds.