(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI caWlng for the records relating to and in connection with the orders dated 28.11.2025 in M.P.No.169 of 2025 in O.P.No.5 of 2025, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Co- Operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently quash the same and dismiss O.P.No.5 of 2025, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Co- Operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 pleased to suspend the proceedings in O.P.No.5 of 2025, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Co- Operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 May be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt.18.12.2025 passed in W. P. No. 35303 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order in M.P.No.169 of 2025 in O.P.No.5 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Tribunal, Vijayawada as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

                  Petitioners are Respondents in O.P.No.5 of 2025 before the A.P.Co-operative Tribunal at Vijayawada. Respondent No.1 had filed O.P.No.5 of 2025 questioning the resolution dated nil passed in the alleged General Body meeting dated 23.09.2020 as null and void and to set aside the termination of membership of Respondent No.1.

3. It is stated that Petitioner-Society was registered under the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1995 with registered No.AMC/KNA/DCO/2013-44, dated 20.11.2013. It is stated that Petitioner No.1 is one of the Founder Member and Director of the Society. In the O.P., it is stated that Petitioner No.2 was the Secretary of the Society by the time of registration and his son was CEO of the Society and they used to prepare minutes of the meetings and resolutions as per their secret plan and obtained signatures from the members and Directors. Respondent No.1 having observed various illegalities committed, requested in his letter dated 04.07.2022 to calculate the annual interest for the period 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 and issue a demand draft for the said amount.

4. In reply, Respondent No.1 was informed that his membership was terminated in Annual General meeting held on 23.09.2020. It is stated that the Society, without referring the dispute to three men committee at any point of time referred the matter to the General Body Meeting dated 23.09.2020 without issuing any notice to Respondent No.1 regarding the allegations. It is stated that the District Co- operative Officer in his letter Rc.No.2185/2020/E dated 28.12.2020 had observed that General Body notices to the members were not served in accordance with the bye-laws and had rejected the amendment to the area of operation of the society. It is stated that in view of the reasoning given by the District Cooperative Officer, the termination of the primary membership of Respondent No.1 is deemed to be rejected. Hence, O.P. was filed.

5. Counter affidavit was filed in the O.P. by the Society denying the contentions. It is stated that the primary membership of Respondent No.1 was duly terminated on 16.07.2020 following the due procedure and thereafter, the General Body had ratified the same vide General Body Resolution dated 23.09.2020. It is also stated that Respondent No.1 is not entitled for the relief straight away by filing O.P. before the Tribunal and issue of claim being barred by limitation was also urged.

6. While so, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., by the Petitioners/Respondents in the O.P. seeking for rejection of the application of the 1st Respondent on the ground that he is not entitled to approach the Tribunal without availing the existing remedy provided under the bye-laws and under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). The rejection was also sought as the O.A. is barred under the provisions of the Limitation Act.

7. The Tribunal, after hearing the respective parties, rejected the claim of the Petitioners leaving it open to the Petitioners that the issues urged by the Petitioners are to be considered in the main O.P. The issue of applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., was also left open to be considered in appropriate case vide impugned orders.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners (Respondents before the Tribunal) contended that the procedure under Section 37 of the Act before approaching the Tribunal and that the application is barred by time since the termination was in the year 2020 and the O.P. filed in the year 2025 cannot be maintained. As regards the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., it is contended that the Rules of C.P.C., are applicable to Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for Respondents (Petitioners before Tribunal) contended that though General Rules of procedure of C.P.C., are applicable to Tribunal proceedings, the provision regarding ‘rejection of plaint’ as provided under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., is substantive in nature and such provision is not applicable. It is further contended that proceedings before Tribunal are summary in nature and rejection of plaint is not applicable to summary proceedings. On the issue of Limitation, it is contended that the same is a mixed question of fact and law and further contended that the application is within time as the removal of the 1st Respondent was rejected by District Cooperative Officer. It was also contended that as society was continuing to treat Respondent No.1 as removed member, the prayer as such was framed. On the issue of bypassing dispute resolution mechanism, the same cannot be decided at this stage.

10. Heard Sri Venna Kalyan Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the Petitioners and V.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the Respondents.

11. The Tribunal did not decide on the applicability of substantive right of rejection of petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., to the proceedings before the Tribunal. In the absence of any finding on this aspect, the only option to this Court would be to remand the issue for reconsideration to the Tribunal. Such a direction and consequential adjudication by the Tribunal would only make way for the aggrieved party to come back to this Court by way of writ petition and consume precious judicial time on the same issue apart from duplication of hearing in different forums at interlocutory stage. Therefore, this Court without going into merits of the claim made by the parties hereto, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with following directions:

                  (i) The Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal at Vijayawada is directed to dispose of O.P.No.5 of 2025 within a period of six (6) months.

                  (ii) The parties in the O.P. shall co-operate for expeditious disposal within the time frame specified.

                  (iii) The issues regarding limitation and Section 37 of the Act urged by the Petitioner-Society shall be addressed at the time of final adjudication by the Tribunal.

                  (iv) No order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.