Dismissed

Meda Rami Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WP/6649/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the refusal of the Divisional Cooperative Officer to distribute One-Time Settlement (OTS) benefits to society members, claiming it was illegal and arbitrary. The Court held that the OTS benefits were merely book adjustments with no cash transfer, thus not distributable under fundamental rights, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Meda Rami Reddy Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010103472021

¶2

[3457]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6649/2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

MEDA RAMI REDDY, S/O CHINNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O ALLURPETA VILLAGE OF ALLUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER, KAVALI DIVISION, KAVALI TOWN SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶17

THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AMARAVATI.

¶18

SRI NUKALAPATI VENKATESWARLU REDDY, PRIMARY CO-OP. SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT ALLUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the

¶21

¶22

respondent No.4 herein in issuing the impugned letter Rc.No. 1239/20198-C ctt.149- 2020 refusing to consider the request made by the petitioner for allocation of the benefits that received by the 6th respondent society through OTS from the lending bank i.e., SBI, Kovur, among its members, contrary to the enquiry report, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same, by directing the respondent authorities to consider for distribution of the benefits received by the 5th respondent among its members, and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶24

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 pleased to pass orders directing the respondent authorities to consider and take appropriate action pursuant to the legal notices dt. 22-7-2020 and 4-92020, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶26

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 May be pleased to grant leave to Respondent No.6 to file the Counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.6649 of 2021, in the interest of justice, and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.G VENKATESWARLU

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.NIKHIL CHOWDARY GUNTUPALLI

¶31

2.GP FOR COOPERATION

¶32

¶33

The Court made the following Order:-

¶34

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.4 in considering the request of the petitioner for passing on the benefits received by the 6th respondent Society through One Time Settlement (OTS) from the State Bank of India, Kovur Branch.

¶35

The petitioner is a member of the 6^th respondent Society and had also served as its President. The 6^th respondent Society was indebted to the State Bank of India, Kovur Branch, and was due an amount of Rs.2,49,92,589/-. An amount of Rs.67,17,002/- was lying in fixed deposit with the State Bank of India, Kovur Branch. The State Bank of India, Kovur Branch, settled the outstanding debt of the 6^th respondent by adjusting the fixed deposit amount of Rs.69,10,297/- and by writing off the outstanding amount of the 6^th respondent. In all, an amount of Rs.1,35,82,292/- was written off by the State Bank of India, Kovur Branch, while extending the OTS facility to the 6^th respondent.

¶36

It is submitted that the 6^th respondent Society is bound to pass on the benefit of the OTS to its members and proportionately share the benefit amongst its members in respect of the loans obtained by them from the 6^th respondent Society. In this regard, the petitioner submitted representations to the 6^th respondent seeking its indulgence and also requested respondent No.4 to take appropriate action for passing on the benefit of the OTS facility availed

¶37

¶38

by the 6^th respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction in the matter, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submits that the arrangement entered into by the 6^th respondent with the State Bank of India, Kovur Branch, is different and distinct. It is further submitted that the adjustment made by the State Bank of India, Kovur Branch, towards writing off an amount of Rs.1,35,82,292/- is only a book adjustment and that there was no cash transfer from the State Bank of India, Kovur Branch, to the 6^th respondent. It is also submitted that the 6^th respondent Society was running under huge losses and, having regard to the nature of its activities and its financial position, the OTS was accepted by the Bank.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.4.

¶41

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the benefit extended by the State Bank of India, Kovvur Branch, in favour of the 6^th respondent is not a cash benefit, but only a book adjustment. The OTS arrived at between the Bank and the 6^th respondent was after taking into consideration the financial status and losses suffered by the 6^th respondent. An OTS is generally arrived at when the borrower is in financial distress and approaches the Bank for settlement of the outstanding dues.

¶42

¶43

In such circumstances, the petitioner, as a matter of fundamental right, cannot claim that the amount purportedly written off by the Bank should be proportionately shared amongst the members of the 6^th respondent Society, particularly when the settlement arrived at is only a book adjustment and there has been no cash transfer from the State Bank of India, Kovvur Branch, in favour of the 6^th respondent.

¶44

On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

____________________

¶47

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

15.09.2026 RSD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶52

WRIT PETITION NO: 6649/2021

¶53

15.09.2026 RSD

Meda Rami Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meda Rami Reddy 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