Disposed

Boayila Sushasini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Sept 2024WP/21229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three ex-Village Organizer Assistants challenged official interference preventing them from discharging VOA duties in their cooperative societies without notice. The court noted the 2019 SERP circular barring official interference in society decision-making, recorded the government's statement of non-interference, and disposed of the writ petition directing the Assistant Project Manager not to int

What did the court decide?

Direction to 4th respondent not to interfere with petitioners' discharge of VOA duties in their respective Sangams; no costs.

Boayila Sushasini Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cooperative Societies | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT •lot

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 21229 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Aged about 41 years Occ Ex

¶8

Prmiyu'Sda°:Slsa“cT “opadu Village;

¶9

1. P*9'i^'jaya Sanlhi, W/o. Ashok Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Occ Mandal, Prakasam Sst?,^' tillage, Pamuru

¶10

Occ^'^Ex^'''rF^‘'®r\ni'' 'A'/O- Venkateswarlu, Aged^about37years Kan.ba,fd1nne^^Nagi'ftfrn^uru°M^i^3L?^Prak^aYi^^^S!^trl^

¶11

...Petitioners
AND

¶12

St 0°/Pr^^^yat^SstrS't, ttpuS^SlrSfr!^^

¶13

1. The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶14

The Additional Collector Project Director, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The Assistant Project Manager, Velugu DRDA, Pamuru Mandal Samakya, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶15

The Pamuru Mandal Samakya, Pamuru Mandal Prakasam District. 6. Mopadu Gramakya Sangam Prakasam District. Mopadu Village, Pamuru Mandal,

¶16

Lakshmi Prasanna Grama Sangam Prakasam District. Pamuru Village and Mandal, Gramakya Sangam, Kambaladinne Village, Pamuru

¶17

Mandal, Prakasam District ...Respondents

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying^thatin

¶19

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more^{particularlyoneinthe} nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^{the4threspondentsin}

¶20

' giying oral instructions to the petitioners not to^{attendtheirdutiesasVillage} Organizer Assistants (VOA) in the 6th to 8th respondent societies respectively without issuing any notice to the petitioners^under political involvement and political pressure is as illegal, arbitrary^and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4 respondent not to restrain the petitioners from discharging their duties^{asVillageOrganizer} Assistants (VOA) in the 6‘^ to 8th respondent societies^respectively

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

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 to direct the 4th respondent not to restrain^{thepetitionersfrom} discharging their duties as Village Organizer Assistants^{(VOA)inthe6thto} 8th respondent societies respectively pending disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY^REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 8: GP FOR SERVICES^IV

¶26

The Court made the following: Order

¶27

APHC010417572024

¶28

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

¶29

[3331]

¶30

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 21229/2024

¶34

Between;

¶35

1.BOAYILA SUSHASINI, W/O.RAVI CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. EX. OF (VILLAGE ORGANIZER ASSISTANT) R/O.D.NO.1-80, MOPADU VILLAGE, PAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶36

2.PULUGU VIJAYA SANTHI, W/O.ASHOK REDDY, AGED ABOUT³⁸ YEARS, OCC. EX. CF (VILLAGE ORGANIZER ASSISTANT) R/0.MOPADU VILLAGE. PAMURU MANDAL. PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶37

3.NEELAM RAJYA LAKSHMI, W/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. EX. CF (VILLAGE ORGANIZER ASSISTANT) R/O.D.NO.2-38, KAMBALADINNE VILLAGE, PAMURU MANDAL. PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶38

...PETITIONER(S)

¶39

AND

¶40

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶41

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶42

3.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR PROJECT DIRECTOR, ONGOLE. PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶43

’ 4.THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER. VELUGU DRDA, PAMURU MANDAL SAMAKYA, PAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶44

5.THE PAMURU MANDAL SAMAKYA, PAMURU MANDAL. PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶45

¶46

SRS,J W.P.No.21229 of 2024

¶47

6.MOPADU GRAMAKYA SANGAM, MOPADU VILLAGE, PAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶48

y.LAKSHMI PRASANNA GRAMA SANGAM, PAMURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶49

MOTHER TERESA GRAMAKYA SANGAM, KAMBALADINNE VILLAGE, PAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶50

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶51

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, order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondents in giving oral instructions to the petitioners not to attend their duties as Village Organizer Assistants (VOA) in the 6th to 8th respondent societies respectively without issuing any notice to the petitioners under political involvement and political pressure is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4 respondent not to restrain the petitioners from discharging their duties as Village Organizer Assistants (VOA) in the to 8th respondent societies respectively and pass such

¶52

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶53

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to restrain the petitioners from discharging their duties as Village Organizer Assistants (VOA) in the 6th to 8th respondent societies respectively pending disposal^{oftheaboveWrit} Petition and pass such

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶55

1.DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶58

¶59

2.GP FOR SERVICES

¶60

¶61

SRS,J W.P.No.21229 of 2024

¶62

The Court made the following:

¶63

:: ORDER ::

¶64

This writ petition is filed complaining about the interference of respondent No.4 in not allowing the petitioners to discharge their duties as Village Organization Assistants (VOA), without issuing any notice. 2. Heard learned counsel on either side. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 has been nominated as Village Organization Assistant in Mopadu Gramakya Sangam, Mopadu Village, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District^andhertenure was renewed by a resolution dated 23.08.2023 (Ex.P2). Petitioner No.2 has been nominated as Village Organization Assistant in Lakshmi Prasanna Grama Sangam, Pamuru Village & Mandal, Prakasam District^andhertenure was renewed by a resolution dated 21.08.2023 (Ex.P3). Petitioner No.3 was nominated as Village Organization Assistant in Mother Teresa Gramakya Sangam, Kambaladinne Village, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District, and her tenure was renewed by a resolution dated 25.07.2023. The 4*^ respondent, without issuing any notice, is not allowing the petitioners to discharge their duties as VOAs. Hence the writ petition. 4. Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for services, on oral instructions of Project Director, DRDA Prakasam 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. 5. The Societies where the petitioners have been discharging duties as I VOAs, are registered under Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995. Individual or Cooperative societies intending to form into

¶65

¶66

SRS,J W.P.No.21229 of2024

¶67

Cooperative Societies under the aforementioned Act, shall frame bye-laws conforming to the principles of cooperation. The membership of the society shall be voluntary and without restrictions of any social, political, rational or religious discrimination to all persons who can make^{useofitsservicesand} are willing 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 the Act speaks about the registration of the society and Section 5 prescribes that the society is a body corporate.

¶68

The members of the society, normally, elect one among them as Village Organization Assistant, by a resolution and pay salary^{tothesaidindividual.} The Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty, Department of Rural Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its CEO, is constituted by the State to implement the schemes for^elimination of rural poverty as proposed by the Union of India as well as the Government of Andhra Pradesh, by issuing circulars from time to time, regarding appointment of Village Organization Assistants, qualifications, procedure for selection, termination, method of payment, duties and obligations.^{Oneofthosecirculars} is circular No.64-/SERP/IB/2018 dated 26.11.2018. Thereafter another Circular No.64-7/SERP/IB/2019 dated 29.08.2019 was issued by Principal Secretary, SERP.

¶69

A perusal of the 2019 circular would manifest that to alleviate poverty and for women empowerment, 27,841 societies were formed in terms of the provisions of A.P.Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995; that those societies are autonomous bodies; that selection, removal and duties of VGA etc., are within the purview of the members of the Society; that the duties and responsibilities of the Staff of the Village Organization^{aredescribedinSection} 25, of the Act; that the staff members of the Village Organization are

¶70

¶71

SRSJ W.P.No.21229 of 2024

¶72

answerable and accountable to the Village Organization and their appointment, removal and performance of duties, are as per the bye-laws, rules and regulations framed by the Executive Committee of the Village Organization.

¶73

The said circular further prescribes that the staff of the CBO/Project should work for development and to achieve financial stability of the Village Organization and they should cooperate and facilitate the development of the Village Organization and shall not influence or interfere with the decisions of the society, (emphasis is mine)

¶74

The circular further prescribes that the staff members of the Village Organization should not indulge in the decision-making process and that the appointments, removal, duties and responsibilities of SangamitraA/OA/ Animator, are to be done by the Village Organization. As per the note in the circular, dated 29.08.2019, it was clarified that no other circulars be issued at the district level. Circular dated 29.08.2019, will be in force till another circular is issued.

¶75

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

¶76

Thus, the aforementioned circular issued by the Principal Secretary commands no interference of the officials with the society's decision-making process except to facilitate. The instructions of the learned Assistant Government pleader would manifest that the officials are not interfering. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the aforementioned circular issued by Principal Secretary,^SERP and the oral instructions of learned A.G.P., this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the 4**^

¶77

¶78

SRS,J W.P.No.21229 of 2024

¶79

respondent not to interfere with the petitioners’ discharging duties as Village Organization Assistants (VOA) in their respective Sangams of Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. No costs.

¶80

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶81

SDI- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶82

To,

¶83

//TRUE COPY//

¶84

The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh

¶85

The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶86

The Additional Collector Project Director, Ongole,^{PrakasamDistrict.}

¶87

The Assistant Project Manager, Velugu DRDA, Pamuru Mandal Samakya, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶88

The Pamuru Mandal Samakya, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶89

Mopadu Gramakya Sangam, Mopadu Village, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶90

Lakshmi Prasanna Grama Sangam, Pamuru Village and Mandal Prakasam District.

¶91

Mother Teresa Gramakya Sangam, Kambaladinne Village, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District

¶92

One CC to SRI DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶93

Pradesh

¶94

”IO.[^w^CCs to GP FOR SERVICES IV .High Court of Andhra

¶95

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 12. Three CD Copies

gsg

HIGH COURT

DATED: 24/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.21229 of 2024

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Boayila Sushasini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boayila Sushasini 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

N Veera Venkata Rao Vs the State of Ap

Desireddy Sarojini at G Sarojini Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk Chand Begum Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Annapareddy Sitaravamma Vs the State of Ap

B.Sarada Ravi Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mutchu Rajya Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh