Allowed

Dirisala Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, v. The a.P.Co-operative Tribunal, At Vijayawada, Krishna

Telangana HC17 Dec 2012WP/37795/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, via a writ petition, set aside an order by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal that suspended the petitioner's election without a hearing. The Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the pending election petition within six weeks while maintaining the status quo.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Tribunal order dated 3.12.2012 was set aside; the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the election petition within six weeks; status quo maintained.

Dirisala Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Vs The… — Election Law | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.37795 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 17.12.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dirisala Chalapathi Rao.

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, rep. by its Additional Registrar & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.37795 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This writ petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 3^rd December 2012, passed in M.A.No.52 of 2012 in O.P.No.19 of 2012, on the file of the A.P.Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada.

¶14

The 10^th respondent is a Society registered under the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995. The claim of the petitioner is that he is elected as a President pursuant to the resolution passed on 20^th of April 2012. On the ground that there was no election at all on the aforesaid date and the proceedings are fabricated, the unofficial respondents herein have questioned the election of petitioner herein by way of Election Petition in O.P.No.19 of 2012 on the file of A.P.Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada. Pending determination of issues in the said O.P., they filed interlocutory application in M.A.No.52 of 2012, seeking suspension of the resolution, dated 20^th April 2012, and also the further order dated 10.05.2012, issued in Letter No.8/DD(P&I)/98. The

¶15

Tribunal, by impugned order, by recording a finding that there are prima facie grounds to suspend the resolution and the consequential order as prayed for, has passed the impugned order suspending the resolution, dated 20^th April 2012, and the consequential order, dated 10.05.2012.

¶16

This writ petition is filed, questioning the validity of the impugned order on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner before deciding M.A.No.52 of 2012, after filing of counter by the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that though there is no prima facie case in the election petition filed by the respondents, the impugned order is passed. On the other hand, it is submitted by Smt.Bobba Vijaya Laxmi, appearing for the unofficial respondents/petitioners before the Tribunal, that there was no resolution at all and that the petitioner herein, by obtaining the signatures of Directors for some other purpose, has fabricated the resolution and used it for the purpose of showing his election on the aforesaid date. It is stated that as much as the very meeting was convened contrary to the by-laws, in view of strong prima facie case in their favour, the impugned order is passed. Similar is also the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader, who has further submitted that as the main O.P. is still pending consideration, the parties may be directed to raise all the issues before the Tribunal.

¶17

As it is the case of the petitioner that he was not heard by the Tribunal before passing orders in M.A.No.52 of 2012, when this writ petition came up on last occasion, the learned Government was directed to obtain necessary instructions and to obtain docket proceedings in M.A.No.52 of 2012 in O.P.No.19 of 2012. Today, the learned Government Pleader has produced the said docket proceedings. A perusal of the said proceedings indicates that the matter was coming up for counters, and so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, he had already filed counter affidavit. The docket order does not indicate hearing of M.A.No.52 of 2012 on any specific date, and it only indicates that orders are pronounced on 03.12.2012. The docket proceedings support the case of petitioner that the said M.A. was not heard on any earlier date. In that view of the matter, the order passed in M.A.No.52 of 2012, is liable to be set aside. Further,

¶18

in view of the serious allegations made by the unofficial respondents herein, who are petitioners before the Tribunal, and as it is stated that the pleadings are complete, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to direct the Tribunal to expedite the hearing of O.P. itself and decide the same at the earliest possible time.

¶19

For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 3^rd December 2012, passed in M.A.No.52 of 2012 in O.P.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the A.P.Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, is set aside, with a direction to the

¶20

Tribunal to dispose of the O.P. itself within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal as and when the matter is listed without seeking any further adjournments, and shall cooperate with it for disposal of the election O.P. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the Tribunal for final disposal of the O.P., it is open for the Tribunal to pass interim order afresh by giving opportunity to the parties. Till appropriate orders are passed by the Tribunal in the O.P., status quo as on today to be maintained by the parties.

¶21

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.47942 and 49172 of 2012 stand closed.

¶23

__________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17^th December 2012 N.B: Issue C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr

Dirisala Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, v. The a.P.Co-operative Tribunal, At Vijayawada, Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dirisala Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, v. The a.P.Co-operative Tribunal, At Vijayawada, Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. J. Premavathi Vs The Tahsildar

Thallapalli. Ravinder Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

M. Lakshmanna Vs The District Collector (Civil supplies)

Smt. Mambakam Razia Murthy, Vs Narra Hari Krishna

Sri M.BaI Reddy Vs The Special Commissioner/

David Memorial Education Society (Regn No. 880 of 1980) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh