Disposed

Sri Srinivasa Cooperative Joint Farming Society Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and

Telangana HC25 Sept 2014WP/20002/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a Society challenging a Government memo setting aside a Section 51 enquiry. Court disposed of the petition, permitting parties to agitate claims under Section 61 before the Divisional Cooperative Officer independently.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner and unofficial respondents permitted to agitate claims under Section 61 independently; Divisional Cooperative Officer to decide within six months without influence from prior report or impu

Sri Srinivasa Cooperative Joint Farming Society… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION NO.20002 OF 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner, which is a Society, is challenging Memo No.1825/Coop.IV(2)/2005 dated 07.03.2009 issued by the State Government/first respondent herein. By virtue of the said memo, the State Government has set aside the proceedings of the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Sangareddy, issued vide Proc.Rc.No.2455 dated 12.01.2004.

¶4

Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri C.Raghu and Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶5

The Joint Registrar vide proceedings in Rc.No.2455 dated 12.01.2004 authorized the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Siddipet, to conduct enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (“the Act” for brevity), into the affairs of the petitionerSociety with specific reference to the organization, functioning, acquisition and disposal of the lands to the members and non-members and the present status of the Society and the fourth respondent conducted enquiry and submitted a report. As against the said orders dated 12.01.2004 and the enquiry report submitted by the fourth respondent, the unofficial respondents herein preferred revision before the Government. The State Government by way of the impugned memo dated 07.03.2009 did set aside the same.

¶6

Challenging the memo dated 07.03.2009, the present Writ Petition came to be filed by urging a number of grounds. This Court, while issuing rule nisi on 26.04.2010 in W.P.No.20002 of 2009, granted interim suspension of the impugned memo dated 07.03.2009.

¶7

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the entire subject matter is now pending consideration in A.R.C.No.2 of 2006 before the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Siddipet, under

¶8

Section 61 of the Act and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents have requested this Court to give liberty to their clients to agitate their respective claims before the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Siddipet and for adjudication of the same by the authority without being influenced by the observations made in the enquiry report submitted under Section 51 of the Act and the impugned memo of the State Government dated 07.03.2009.

¶9

This Court is of the opinion that the said request made by the learned counsel on either side is reasonable in the interest of all. For the forgoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents to agitate their respective claims before the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Siddipet, in A.R.C.No.2 of 2006 and he shall decide the same independently, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in the enquiry report filed under Section 51 of the Act and impugned memo dated 07.03.2009, including the recommendations pertaining to criminal prosecution, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that any further action shall be only after conclusion of the proceedings in A.R.C.No.2 of 2006 before the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Siddipet. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶10

_______________ (A.V.SESHA SAI, J)

¶11

25^th September 2014 RRB

Sri Srinivasa Cooperative Joint Farming Society Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivasa Cooperative Joint Farming Society Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and

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

Sri Cherukuri Tarakaramakrishna Prasad Vs Sri Chennakeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, rep by

M/s. Ashok Talkies (Old and New), rep by Mr. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Md. Sofi Vs The Executive Officer

Smt.Ravulapati Ahalya Rani Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and Rural

Pathapati Sesha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sayyed Dasthageer Vs Union of India