Dismissed

Edara Venkata Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC10 Oct 2012WP/31807/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to continue as Society President, based on an appointment following a superior court's invalidation of the predecessor's disqualification. The Court held the appointment lacked validity due to the underlying order's illegality and dismissed the petition, though other remedies remain available.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; WPMP disposed of as infructuous.

Edara Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31807 of 2012 Dated: 10.10.2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Edara Venkata Reddy .. Petitioners. And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation, and others. .. Respondents.

¶5

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Potti Venkata Ramana Rao

¶6

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: G.P. for Cooperation

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to discharge his functions as President of respondent No.4 Society in pursuance of order dated 20.01.2012 of respondent No.3 and order dated 25.06.2012 in W.P.No.2037 of 2012 of this Court as illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

The petitioner is the Vice President of respondent No.4 Society. By order dated 20.01.2012, the President of respondent No.4 has incurred disqualification as his close relative one K.Bala Krishna is working as a clerk in the said Society. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the President of the Society filed Writ Petition No.2037 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court holding that the disqualification of the office bearer for being near relative of a paid employee of the Society as envisaged under Section 21-A of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) does not automatically come into force and that only in cases falling under Sections 21 (g) or 21-AA (5) or 21-AA (6) of the Act, the disqualification is automatic. In this view of the matter, this Court has held that the order of respondent No.3 is not legal and proper and he was, accordingly, directed to place the issue before the General Body of the Society and take appropriate action depending upon the resolution to

¶11

be passed by it.

¶12

The petitioner, who is the Vice President, claims that as a consequence to the abovementioned order of respondent No.3 disqualifying the President, he was appointed as President under Rule 23-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 by the same order, under which the President was disqualified, and that till an appropriate order is passed, he shall be continued as the President.

¶13

At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, on instructions, submitted that as directed by this Court, respondent No.3 has directed summoning of the General Body and placed the issue before the same and that the General Body has passed a resolution refusing to disqualify the President on the ground that the near relative of the President has resigned from the post he was holding in the Society. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that since no further action is contemplated in pursuance of the General Body resolution, it is deemed that all further proceedings are dropped.

¶14

Mr. P.Venkata Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that till an appropriate order is passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner is entitled to be continued as the in-charge President.

¶15

Inasmuch as this Court did not approve order dated 20.01.2012 of respondent No.3, as the President has not ceased to hold office in the absence of any resolution passed by the General Body, the very appointment of the petitioner itself by respondent No.3 has no validity in law. Therefore, on the basis of such appointment, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue as the President. In this view of the matter, the petitioner does not have any enforceable right for issuance

¶16

of Mandamus for his continuance as in-charge President of the Society. However, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the resolution of the General Body, he shall be free to avail appropriate remedy according to law.

¶17

Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶18

As a sequel, WPMP.No.40566 of 2012, filed for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J

¶20

10.10.2012 v v

Edara Venkata Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edara Venkata Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Pathangi Janaiah, Vs The District Collector

M/s.Trimex Industries Pvt. Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Rtc Telangana Mazdoor Union, Vs A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

B.Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.Timma Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Boddeda Prasad Vs The Tahsildar

Boddeda Prasad Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh