M. Ramesh Naidu Vs Prl. Secy., Agrl. & Coop. Dept. & 3 Ors.

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing the impugned order in Procs.Rc.No.1/2016/PACS dt.02.01.2017 refusing to consider request

¶20

2

¶21

made by the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same, and to grant..

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 30869 OF 2017

¶23

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

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: P L RAO Counsel for the Respondent GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)

¶25

The Court made the following order:

¶26

3

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.24913 OF 2017

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

¶30

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in issuing the impugned order in Procs.Rc.No.1/2016/PACS dt.02.01.2017 refusing to consider request made by the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same, and to grant …..”

¶31

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the respondent authorities have passed Surcharge Proceedings dated 12.08.2016 under Section 60 of A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and also brought to the notice of this Court that after passing of the said proceedings, the petitioner is now working as Chief Executive Officer, at Kotakki PACS, Vizianagaram.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.L.Rao, fairly submits that till today, the said Surcharge proceedings dated 12.08.2016 were not served to the petitioner. In

¶33

4

¶34

that view of the matter, he sought liberty of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition and permit him to challenge the same by

¶35

way of filing fresh writ petition by taking appropriate steps.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader ensured that he will serve the copy of proceedings dated 12.08.2016 to the petitioner’s counsel. The copy of surcharge proceedings dated 12.08.2016 passed by the respondents authorities are made as part of the record.

¶37

Accordingly, by considering the submissions made by both counsels, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn by giving liberty to the petitioner to work out his legal remedies in accordance with law including challenging the orders dated 12.08.2016 passed by the respondent authorities, within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

¶38

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

¶40

Date:06.02.2026 Rns

¶41

5

¶42

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶43

WRIT PETITION No.24913 of 2017