Dismissed

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its v. L.Shivashankar Reddy

Telangana HC21 Jun 2013WA/898/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an interim order directing elections to be held by excluding defaulted societies. Only after the merits of the writ petition are decided should the election process continue.

What did the court decide?

The interim order of the learned single judge was set aside. The election process was stayed until the disposal of the writ petition.

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

Writ Appeal Nos. 898 and 899 of 2013

¶4

DATED:21-06-2013 Writ Appeal Nos. 898 of 2013

¶5

Between:

¶6

Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Special Chief Secretary (AM&C_ FAC, Agriculture & Cooperation (Coop.IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others

¶7

… Appellants

¶8

And

¶9

L. Shivashankar Reddy and 57 others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶13

Writ Appeal Nos. 898 and 899 of 2013

¶14

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

¶15

Since both the appeals arise out of same order, they are disposed of by this common order.

¶16

Writ Appeal (SR) No. 96161 of 2013 is filed by the State and two others who were respondent Nos.1 to 3, whereas Writ Appeal (SR) No. 96436 of 2013 is filed by respondent Nos.11, 22, 40 and 52 in Writ Petition No. 17131 of 2013.

¶17

The appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20-06-2013 in W.P.M.P No. 20789 of 2013 in the said writ petition and are moved on account of urgency by way of lunch motion. Though the text of the copy of the order impugned in the appeals is not filed on account of non-availability of the certified/carbon copy of the order of the learned single Judge, all the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties on either side consented for hearing and disposal of the appeals as it is not in controversy that the learned single Judge suspended the operation of G.O.Rt.No.839, Agriculture & Cooperative (Coop.IV) Department, dated 14-06-2013 and the consequential proceedings and thereby, elections are required to be held to the Managing Committee of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited., Anantapur, (DCCB) by excluding the defaulted Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies (PACSs). It is stated that election process up to the stage of polling is completed and the polling is to

¶18

take place on 23-06-2013 and hence, there is urgency in hearing of these appeals.

¶19

In these writ appeals, the grievance of the appellants is that the learned single Judge by way of an interim order directed the Government to go ahead with the election by suspending the operation of G.O.Rt.No.839, dated 14-06-2013 and the proceedings dated 14-062013 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Election Officer, Andhra Pradesh, the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition and also stayed all the further proceedings pursuant to notification dated 16-06-2013 issued by the Election Officer, the 5^th respondent in the writ petition. By virtue of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the Election Officer has to hold elections to the DCCB, Anantapur with only non-defaulted PACSs.

¶20

Learned Advocate General and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the situation prevailing in Anantapur District, the Government issued the impugned G.O and enabled the defaulted PACSs in the Anantapur District to participate in the elections.

¶21

Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel contends that under Section 123 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, the Government has no power to exempt any society from operation of Section 21A of the Act.

¶22

Whether the Government has power to allow the defaulted PACSs to participate in the election or not is a question to be decided in the writ petition.

¶23

It is brought to our notice that the learned single Judge while passing interim order observed that the elections are subject to the out come of the writ petition. It is also brought to our notice that by virtue of the impugned G.O., defaulted PACSs were also permitted to file their nominations and some of the candidates of defaulted PACSs are also contesting in the elections.

¶24

In our view, unless and until the question as to whether the Government has power to order such exemption or not is decided by this Court, it is not proper to go ahead with the elections.

¶25

In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and stay the election process until the disposal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge. The appellants are directed to file their counters within one week from today and the respondents/writ petitioners are directed to file rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter. The learned single Judge is requested to dispose of the writ petition on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four week from today.

¶26

The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶27

N.V. RAMANA, J

¶28

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶29

21^st June, 2013 ks

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its v. L.Shivashankar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its v. L.Shivashankar Reddy

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

M/s. Vodafone South Limited, Vs The Narasaraopet Municipality

K.Ammaji, Vs Sri Sri Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam

Committee of Medical and Health Employees Cooperative Vs The District Collector (Coop)

The Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Vs L. Shivashankar Reddy

The Vice Chariman and Managing Director, Vs M/s.Lords, Security Mint Ltd.

The Nandyal Lorry and Bus Owner Union Congress, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary