HC orders action against tribunal for acting against court | Hyderabad News

Hyderabad: Wondering how a cooperative tribunal would act against the order of a high court regarding conducting an election to a cooperative society, Justice Madhavi Devi of the Telangana high court has called the actions of a tribunal at Hyderabad ‘contumacious’ and called for action against a Hyderabad district judge, who holds charge as the chairperson of the tribunal. The high court also directed the state govt to take necessary action against the additional registrar, who is also a member of the tribunal in the same matter.The high court criticised the tribunal for passing an interim order ‘without applying mind’, which attempted to invalidate the court’s previous order by declaring it obsolete. The matter has been directed to the Chief Justice for further action against the tribunal chairperson.The case emerged from a writ petition filed by Golden Leaves Villa Owners Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd, Bandlaguda, challenging the tribunal’s Feb 2025 order that stayed society elections. The high court previously instructed the tribunal in Oct 2024 to resolve pending election matters. Justice Madhavi Devi emphasised that the tribunal couldn’t declare the high court’s order obsolete, especially since the tribunal’s interim order was set aside. The court noted that despite earlier directions to hear the matter afresh and decide on merits, the tribunal’s order failed to address the merits of the case.The high court has set aside the tribunal’s Feb 2025 order and mandated a fresh hearing of related matters, requiring speaking orders based on merits and legal compliance. The society’s counsel argued that the tribunal’s order demonstrated wilful disobedience of the high court’s directions. In defence, the tribunal’s counsel maintained that they considered the matters afresh and deemed it necessary to continue the stay on elections scheduled for Oct 2025.The tribunal’s counsel further contended that despite possible inappropriate wording, the order was based on merit consideration and shouldn’t warrant high court intervention.