Disposed

M. Chandra Mohan v. The District Cooperative Officer (Fac)

Telangana HC1 Oct 2012WP/21112/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition was disposed of. The Court clarified that the petitioner, as President of the society, must cooperate in the inspection of society books. If he fails to do so, the Respondent officer is empowered to complete the inspection and submit a report independently, strictly within the confined scope of the interim order.

What the court decided

AI extract

M. Chandra Mohan Vs The District Cooperative Officer… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.21112 of 2011

¶3

Date: 01.10.2012

¶4

Between: M. Chandra Mohan … Petitioner And The District Cooperative Officer (FAC), Anantapur and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S.V. Ramana Counsel for the respondents : GP for Cooperation

¶5

The Court made the following :

¶6

Order:

¶7

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.1506/2010-F dated 20.07.2011 of respondent No.1.

¶8

A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that on 29.07.2011, this Court while declining to suspend the impugned proceedings, gave the following direction:

¶9

“In the circumstances, even though the impugned order is not liable to be suspended in its entirety, it is clarified that if the inspection is undertaken in pursuance of the orders, the same shall be strictly confined only to the inspection of the books of the society, including those relating to the alleged misutilisation of funds, collection of amounts for issuing no objection certificates and selling of a plot of the society.”

¶10

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation submitted that while respondent No.1 has no objection for confining the scope of the aspects referred to in the above interim order he however, stated that the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, has been avoiding to participate in the inspection.

¶11

In my opinion, the petitioner being the President of the

¶12

Society concerned is under obligation to cooperate in the inspection. However, if the petitioner does not extend his cooperation, respondent No.1 shall be free to exercise his statutory powers and take appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that the inspection is completed and a report submitted by the Inspecting Officer.

¶13

Subject to the above observations and in terms of the interim order re-produced above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶14

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.V.M.P.No.3612 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

__________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 1^st October, 2012 cbs

¶16

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶17

Writ Petition No.21112 of 2011

¶18

1^st October, 2012

¶19

cbs

M. Chandra Mohan v. The District Cooperative Officer (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M. Chandra Mohan v. The District Cooperative Officer (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katukuri Devendar Reddy, Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies)

M/s. T.M. Tyres Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

P.Ramesh Babu Vs The District Collector (Cs), Prakasam District at Ongole

Mohd. Mazheruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh Private Engineering Colleges Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its