Allowed

Irugu Vani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Sept 2024WP/18292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Village Organisation Assistant, challenged the non-issuance of notice before her duties were interfered with by respondents. Relying on a Principal Secretary circular stating that society staff should not interfere with society decisions, the Court directed respondents not to interfere and disposed of the petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 6 and 7 not to interfere with petitioner's discharge of duties as Village Organisation Assistant.

Irugu Vani Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 18292 OF 2024 ^

¶6

Between:

¶7

Irugu Vani, W/o Venkatasubbaiah, aged 37 years, Occ. VOA (Village Organisation Assistant), Kayyuru Grama Sangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh, R/o Yachavaram Post, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh,, represented by Principal Secretary, (Panchayathraj and Rural Development Department), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Society for Elimination Rural Poverty (SERP), Department of Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Office at 2nd Floor NTR Administrative Block, PNBS, Represented by its Chief Execute Officer. Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh,

¶12

The Project Director,, DRDA, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

The Assistant Project Director,, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

The Area Co-ordinator,, DRDA, Venkatagiri Area, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

The Assistant Project Manager,, Balayapalli, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer,, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 to issue a writ or order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondents 6 and 7 herein in interfering with the duties of the petitioner as well as in not allowing her to discharge her duties as Village Organisation Assistant for Kayyuru Grama Sangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh, in spite of passing of resolution by all the members of the Mannur Grama Sangam dated 25.07.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, and also oppose to Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as oppose to the principles of naturals justice besides without jurisdiction consequentially direct the respondents more particularly the respondents 6 and 7 herein to allow the petitioner to discharge her duties as Village Organisation Assistant for Kayyuru Grama Sangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh as per the resolution dated 25.07.2024 passed by all^{themembersoftheMannur} Grama Sangam

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents more particularly the respondents 6^and7herein to allow the petitioner to discharge her duties as Village Organisation Assistant for Kayyuru Grama Sangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh as per the resolution dated 25.07.2024 passed by all the members of the Mannur Grama Sangam pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶21

titioner(s):SRI. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Pe • GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondents The Court made the following^;ORDER

[3331]

APHC010356112024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at ANIARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

_ twentieth day of SEPTEMBER FRIDAY ,THE TWO thousand. and twenty four

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI the honourable SRI WFIT PFTITI<^^» 18292/2024

¶29

Between;

¶30

,,KUGU van,, W/0 VOA (VILLAGE TIRUPATH, SANGAM, KAYYURU VIL^GE BALA yACHAVARAM POST. SrU ViZgTbaSaLU MANDAL, TIRUPATH, DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

1 .THE STATE OF ANDHRA P'^ADESH’ GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶34

¶35

r^rroosn™ ."..sSpor'p;«

¶36

3 THE project director, DRDA, TlRUPATHl, TIRUPATHI district, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶37

4.THE assistant project director, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

¶38

¶39

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶40

DRDA, VENKATAGIRI AREA

¶41

5.THE AREA COORDINATOR TIRUPATHl, TIRUPATHl DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶42

6.THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER, BALAYAPALLI, TIRUPATHl TIRUPATHl DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶43

7.THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BALAYAPALLI MANDAL, TIRUPATHl, TIRUPATHl DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶44

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶45

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatinthe} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmaybe} order or directions more particularly one pleased to pleased to issue a writ or in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action^{oftherespondents} more particularly the respondents 6 and 7 herein in^{interferingwiththeduties} of the petitioner as well as in not allowing her to^dischargeher duties as Village Organisation Assistant for Kayyuru Grama Sangam,^Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh, in spite^of passing of members of the Mannur Grama Sangam dated resolution by all the to Article 14 of the 25 07.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, and also oppose Constitution of India as well as oppose to the principles^{ofnaturalsjustice} besides without jurisdiction consequentially direct the respondents more particularly the respondents 6 and 7 herein to allow^{thepetitionertodischarge} her duties as Village Organisation Assistant for Kayyuru^GramaSangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi District,^{AndhraPradeshasper} the resolution dated 25.07.2024 passed by all the members^oftheMannur Grama Sangam lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleased} pleased to direct the respondents more particularly^{therespondents6and7} herein to allow the petitioner to discharge her duties^{asViilageOrganisation} Assistant for Kayyuru Grama Sangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli^Mandal, the resolution dated 25.07.2024 Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh as per the members of the Mannur Grama Sangam pending disposal passed by all of the above writ petition

¶46

¶47

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶49

1.VSAI KUMAR

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶51

1.GP FOR SERVICES

¶52

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶53

This writ petition is filed complaining about interference by respondent Nos.6 & 7 in not allowing the petitioner to discharge her duty as Village Organization Assistant (VOA) of Kayyuru Grama Sangam. Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupati District, without issuing any notice.

¶54

This Court by order dated 22.08.2024, directed respondent Nos.6 & 7 not to interfere with the petitioner’s discharging duties as VOA of Kayyuru Grama Sangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupati District, without following due process of law.

¶55

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of resolution dated 16.11.2021, the petitioner was elected/nominated as VOA Kayyuru Grama Sangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupati District and she has been continuing to discharge her duties as VOA, by virtue of resolution dated 25.07.2024 (Ex.PI). Respondents 6 & 7, without issuing any notice are not allowing the petitioner to discharge her duties.

¶57

Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for services. on instructions of Project Director, DRDA-Velugu, Tirupati District, would submit that the officials are not interfering with the activities of the petitioner as VOA. He also produced a copy of Circular No.647/SERP/IB/2019 dated 29.08.2019 issued by Principal Secretary, SERP.

¶58

has been discharging duties, as VOA 6. The Society where the petitioner Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies^Act, is registered under 1995. Individual or Cooperative societies intending to form into Cooperative aforementioned Act, shall frame bye-laws conforming to Societies under the The membership of the society shall be the principles of cooperation voluntary and without restrictions of any^{social,political,rationalorreligious} of its services and are willing discrimination to all persons who can make use to accept the responsibilities of membership. Members of primary^Cooperative Societies shall enjoy equal rights of voting and participation in decisions affecting their Cooperative Societies. Section 4 of^{theActspeaksaboutthe} and Section 5 prescribes that the society is a body registration of the society corporate.

¶59

The members of the society, normally, elect one among them^asVillage to the said individual.

¶60

Organization Assistant, by a resolution and pay salary The Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty, Department of Rural Pradesh, represented by its CEO, is

¶61

Development, State of Andhra elimination of rural

¶62

constituted by the State to implement the schemes for the Government of

¶63

poverty as proposed by the Union of India as well as circulars from time to time, regarding appointment

¶64

Andhra Pradesh, by issuing Assistants, qualifications, procedure for selection,

¶65

of Village Organization termination. method of payment, duties and obligations. One of those circulars is circular No.64-/SERP/1B/2018 dated 26.11.2018. Thereafter another issued by Principal

¶66

Circular No.64-7/SERP/lB/2019 dated 29.08.2019 was Secretary, SERP.

¶67

2019 circular would manifest that to alleviate poverty 8. A perusal of the and for women empowerment, 27,841 societies were formed in terms of the provisions of A.P.Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies^{Act,1995;thatthose} societies are autonomous bodies; that seiection, removal^{anddutiesofVOA}

¶68

¶69

¶70

etc., are within the purview of the members of the^{Society:thatthedutiesand} responsibilities of the Staff of the Village Organization^{aredescribedinSection} 25 of the Act; that the staff members of the Village Organization are answerable and accountable to the Village Organization and their appointment, removal and performance of duties, are^{asperthebye-laws,} rules and regulations framed by the Executive Committee of the Village Organization. 9. The said circular further prescribes that the staff^{oftheCBO/Project} should work for development and to achieve financial^{stabilityoftheVillage} Organization and they should cooperate and facilitate^{thedevelopmentofthe} Village Organization and shall not influence or interfere^{withthedecisions} of the society, (emphasis is mine)

¶71

The circular further prescribes that the staff members^oftheVillage Organization should not indulge in the decision-making^{processandthatthe} appointments, removal duties and responsibilities of Sangamitrha/VOA/Animator, are to be done by the Village^{Organization.As} per the note in the circular, dated 29.08.2019, it^{wasclarifiedthatnoother} circulars be issued at the district level. Circular^{dated29.08.2019,willbe} in force till another circular is issued.

¶72

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would^submitthat circular dated 29.08.2019 is in force till date.

¶73

Secretary 12. Thus, the aforementioned circular issued by the Principal commands no interference of the officials with the^{society'sdecision-making} process except to facilitate. The instructions of the learned Assistant Government pleader would manifest that the officials^{arenotinterfering.}

¶74

¶75

Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the aforementioned circular issued by the Principal Secretary, SERF, and the instructions furnished by the Project Director, DRDA-Velugu, Tirupati District, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, directing the respondent Nos.6 & 7 not to interfere with the petitioner’s discharging duties as VGA of Kayyuru Grama Sangam, Kayyuru Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupati District. No order as to costs.

¶76

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶77

SD/- V.SAVfTHRI GOWRI assistant REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI FICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh,, represented by, (Panchayathraj and Rural Development Department), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶82

The Society for Elimination Rural Poverty (SERF), Department of Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Office at 2nd Floor NTR Administrative Block, PNBS, Represented by its Chief Execute^Officer. Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh,

¶83

The Project Director,, DRDA, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Assistant Project Director,, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Area Co-ordinator,, DRDA, Venkatagiri Area, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶84

The Assistant Project Manager,, Balayapalli, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶85

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer,, Balayapalli Mandal, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶86

One CC to SRI. V SAI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶87

Two.CCsto GP FOR SERVICES IV .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶88

THREE CD Copies

^ -

high court

DATED;20/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.18292 of 2024

pet\t\on is disposed of WRIT

Irugu Vani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irugu Vani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Radha Krishna Vs the Regional Director of Medical Health and Services

Addagiri Ramanjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Peddalanka Durga Srinivas Vs the State of Ap

Nemala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Anil Kumar Singhal, IAS

Pothugunta Shakeela Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Udatha Hemalatah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh