Dismissed

Guntur District Milk Producers Sangam, v. Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2021WA/308/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati Bench, hearing an application for leave to appeal and a related writ appeal, dismissed both without going into merits. The court held that since the State preferred a separate appeal against the interim order and the applicant's impleadment petition was pending consideration, granting leave was not a fit case.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; writ appeal dismissed without going into merits.

Guntur District Milk Producers Sangam, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶5

I.A.No.2 of 2021 in WRIT APPEAL No.308 of 2021

¶6

and

¶7

WRIT APPEAL No.308 of 2021

¶8

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶9

Guntur District Milk Producers Sangam, Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangam (AIKS), Guntur District Unit, P.L. Rao Bhavan, 2/7 Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District, Rep. by its President Kanchumati Ajay Kumar.

¶10

.. Appellant.

¶11

Versus

¶12

Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited, Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi, S. Jagarlamudi, Guntur District, Represented by its Director V. Dharma Rao and others.

¶13

.. Respondents.

¶14

Counsel for the appellant/applicant : Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy

¶15

Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr.Advocate for Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri Counsel for respondent Nos.3&4 : Mr. S. Sriram, Advocate General Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. K. Appa Rao, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 01.07.2021 Date of judgment : 01.09.2021

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶18

Heard Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the

¶19

applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior

¶20

HCJ & NJS,J I.A.No.2/2021 in WA.No.308/ 2021 & WA.No.308/2021

¶21

¶22

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶23

I.A.No.2 of 2021 is an application for leave to prefer appeal against an interim order dated 07.05.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.9279 of 2021.

¶24

At the outset, it will be relevant to state that being aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Special Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Dy.&Vig.) Department, had preferred an appeal, being W.A.No.281 of 2021. This application for leave to appeal was also heard on the day when the aforesaid appeal was heard.

¶25

In the application for leave, it is pleaded that the applicant along with three others had filed a public interest litigation, being P.I.L.No.423 of 2013, against the conversion of Guntur District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union as Sangam Milk Producer Company and had submitted representations dated 29.05.2019 and 18.09.2020 to the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to take appropriate action against the Chairman, Managing Director and other officials of the Company for mismanagement and mortgage of the properties of the Government and to take over the assets of the Government.

¶26

Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy submits that the applicant/appellant had filed I.A.No.3 of 2021 in the writ petition seeking its impleadment as respondent No.4 in the writ petition but, without giving opportunity to the applicant/appellant and without considering the contents of the implead petition, the learned single Judge had suspended the impugned G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 27.04.2021. While endorsing the stand taken by the

¶27

HCJ & NJS,J I.A.No.2/2021 in WA.No.308/ 2021 & WA.No.308/2021

¶28

¶29

learned Advocate General in W.A.No.281 of 2021, he has submitted that as the conversion of the writ petitioner No.1 entity as a producer company from a mutually aided co-operative society is pending adjudication, the impugned interim order is not sustainable. He places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian v. P. Veldurai, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 214 , with regard to the executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India , reported in (2013) 6 SCC 616 , in the context of the power of the Court to go into the merits and demerits of the Government policy.

¶30

Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, submits that the applicant/appellant is not a necessary party as G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 27.04.2021, impugned in the writ petition, was not issued at the instance of the applicant/appellant. It is submitted that the writ appeal preferred by the State against the interim order has been extensively argued by the learned Advocate General and, therefore, no case is made out for grant of leave to the applicant/appellant.

¶31

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the learned single Judge ought not to have passed the interim order without considering the application filed by the applicant/appellant for its impleadment in the writ petition, merits no acceptance in view of the fact that prima facie, the applicant/appellant does not appear to be a necessary party in view of the fact that G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 27.04.2021 does not indicate that the same came to be issued because of representation filed by the applicant/appellant. In any case, as the State

¶33

HCJ & NJS,J I.A.No.2/2021 in WA.No.308/ 2021 & WA.No.308/2021

¶34

¶35

has preferred an appeal against the interim order which is under challenge and as the application filed by the applicant/appellant for its impleadment in the writ petition is pending consideration before the learned single Judge, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

¶36

Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2021 is dismissed. Correspondingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed without going into the contentions advanced on the appeal. No costs. Other pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

We make it clear that as the dismissal of this appeal is not on merits, the same will in no way affect the merits of W.A.No.281 of 2021. We would also like to observe that the implead petition filed by the applicant/appellant in the writ petition may be decided without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶38

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶39

IBL

Guntur District Milk Producers Sangam, v. Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guntur District Milk Producers Sangam, v. Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Project Director, Vs Tammareddy Ramesh

Yelavarthi Srinivasa Rao Vs Union of India

Yalamanchili Basaveswara Rao Vs Union of India

Potnuru Arun Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited.

The Chairman Vs v Mallikarjuna