Disposed

D. Prabhakar Rao v. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of

Telangana HC3 Jun 2010WP/24389/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition at the admission stage by observing that the core grievance regarding the non-initiation of an enquiry had been effectively addressed since the third respondent was transferred and divested of office. The court directed the first respondent to complete the pending Section 51 enquiry within four months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed without costs; authorities directed to complete the pending Section 51 enquiry within four months.

D. Prabhakar Rao Vs The Commissioner for… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 24389 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri Mohd.Asifuddin, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri Ch.Koteshwar Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶5

The relief sought for, in the writ petition, is for a mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in not initiating an enquiry, under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), pursuant to the letter dated 21.10.2009 of the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Karimnagar, and the representation of the petitioner dated 26.10.2009, as arbitrary and illegal, and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to give effect to the letter dated 21.10.2009.

¶6

Under the said letter dated 21.10.2009, the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Karimnagar, informed the Commissioner of Cooperation of various acts of misconduct committed by the third respondent herein; the Commissioner was requested to have an enquiry caused with reference to misappropriation/misutilisation of funds by the Committee colluding with the Managing Director and Accounts Officer of the Society; and to post any one of the Additional Registrars or the Joint Registrars of Cooperative Societies as the Managing Director in the place of Sri S.Ranga Rao, the third respondent herein.

¶7

An enquiry, under Section 51 of the Act, was initiated to enquire into the allegation of misappropriation of funds in excess of Rs.5.00 Crores. Since the third respondent, against whom the

¶8

allegations pertain, was continued, despite an enquiry having been ordered under Section 51 of the Act, this Court, in its order dated 29.04.2010, observed that it was appropriate that he be kept away from the affairs of the Society till the enquiry is completed so as to ensure that the enquiry is not in any way hampered or interfered with. The first respondent, in consultation with the Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, was directed to take steps within two weeks to ensure that the third respondent was not in the helm of the affairs of the Society and was divested of the custody of all the records of the Society till the enquiry, under Section 51 of the Act, was completed.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation has placed before this Court a copy of the proceedings of the President, CESS Limited, Sircilla, dated 12.05.2010, wherein the services of Sri Md. Younus, Superintending Engineer, Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Warangal, was placed at the disposal of CESS Limited, Sircilla. The certificate of transfer of charge, enclosed to the letter dated 12.05.2010, records that the third respondent herein was transferred as Superintending Engineer, Warangal on 12.05.2010; and Sri Md. Younus had taken charge as Superintending Engineer, Cess Limited, Sircilla on 12.05.2010.

¶10

Since an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act has already been initiated, and the third respondent has been divested from the office of Managing Director, CESS Limited, Sircilla and transferred elsewhere, the cause in the writ petition does not necessitate adjudication. It is, however, made clear that the authorities shall conduct and complete the enquiry, under Section 51 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶12

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶13

Date:04.06.2010 usd

D. Prabhakar Rao v. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Prabhakar Rao v. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of

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

A.Hanmanth Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh,rep.by its PRincipal

Gram Panchayat, Pathapatnam Vs Karri Varalaxmi

Smt.Madala Udaya Lakshmi Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its

Bellakurthi Nagalakshmi Vs The District Collector

Surat Ganapathi Rao Vs the Settlement Officer Cum-Sub-Collector

Sri Madisetty Venkat Ratnam Vs The Deputy Commissioner