HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT APPEAL No.480 of 2015 Dt:05.06.2015 Between:
P.Vasantha Rao.
… Appellant And Lakshmisetti Venkateswara Rao and others.
… Respondents HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT APPEAL No.480 of 2015 PC: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.24598 of 2005 is the appellant. The appellant assails order, dated 25.06.2014. Through the order impugned in the appeal, the learned Single Judge has ordered as follows:
“For the aforesaid reasons, and having regard to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder which are referred to above, and having regard to the nature of controversy in the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 76 of the Act r/w Rule 52 (14) (vi) of the Rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter, without reference to the limitation prescribed under the statute. Pending such exercise, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained with regard to the property.”
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the learned Judge without the first respondent either showing reason or by filing an application for condonation of delay, has granted time for filing appeal under Section 76 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 read with Rule 52 (14) (vi) of the Rules. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent ought to have been relegated to the appellate authority and to follow the procedure including to file application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
In the considered view of this Court, the objection is more procedural and pedantic. The Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India having regard to the peculiar fact situation of the case and having felt that the remedy of appeal is apt and appropriate relegated the first respondent to file appeal. For the reasons stated in the order, dated 25.06.2014, we are not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for appellant.
Writ appeal is dismissed. Objections on merits are left open for consideration by the Tribunal as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ S.V. BHATT, J Dt:05.06.2015 kdl