Allowed

Sadhu Damayanthi, v. The Govt. of a.P., rep.by its Secretary, Co-op. Dept.

Telangana HC2 Mar 2016WP/18752/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and following the Supreme Court and this Court's earlier judgment upholding that challenge, the High Court allowed the writ to the extent of the prayer in the first petition, effectively disposing of all petitions by affirming the nullity of the challenged provisions.

What did the court decide?

The writ of mandamus was issued declaring the challenged subsections of the Act null and void, setting aside proceedings under them, and restoring status quo ante.

Sadhu Damayanthi, Vs The Govt. of a.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos. 2124 of 2005 and 24149 and 18752 of 2004

¶4

Date: 02.03.2016

¶5

W.P.No.2124 of 2005 Between:

¶6

Sadhu Rama Rao & others.

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

And The State of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Cooperate Department, Hyderabad & others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION Nos. 2124 of 2005 and 24149 and 18752 of 2004

¶12

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

In these three writ petitions, though the petitioners are different, the respondents are common and the prayers made are similar. The prayer made in W.P.No.2124 of 2005, according to the learned counsel for the parties, is exhaustive and covers the prayers made in other writ petitions also. The prayer made in W.P.No.2124 of 2005 reads thus:

¶15

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, petitioners prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring, that sub-sections (3) to (8) and explanation (h) of Section 12-A of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964 are null, void and ultra vires the constitution, as they are illegal, arbitrary void and violative of the fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice, and consequently to setaside all the proceedings that took place under the aforesaid challenged provisions of law, such as the acceptance/of tender/offer of the 5^th respondent the execution of the agreement in favour of the 5^th respondent for transferring the assets and liabilities of the 4^th respondent, the transfer and handing over of the assets of the 4^th respondent to the 5^th respondent; to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to restore status quo ante as stood prior to 2.1.2004 regarding the assets of the 4^th respondent, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to execute any sale deed in favour of the 5^th respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶16

It is not in dispute that the challenge raised in these petitions to sub-sections (3) to (8) and explanation (h) of Section 12-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was also raised in G.V. Jayachandra Chowdary and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others - W.P.No.20572 of 2003 and this Court vide judgment and order, dated 30.04.2004, upheld the challenge. The said judgment is reported in 2004 (3) ALD 474 (D.B.).

¶17

In view thereof, Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that W.P.No.2124 of 2005 deserves to be allowed in terms of the prayer made therein. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents including the contesting respondent No.5 (auction purchaser).

¶18

Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5, however, submitted that respondent No.5 may be given liberty to approach the Government by way of representation seeking refund of the amount deposited by them towards the consideration and also to make other claims, if any.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners have not objected for allowing respondent No.5 to make representation, as aforementioned. They, however, submitted that if any such representation is made, the concerned authority may be directed to consider the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

In the circumstances, we dispose of these writ petitions by the following order:

¶21

“W.P.No.2124 of 2005 is allowed in terms of the prayer made therein. In view thereof and in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the prayers in other two petitions are also covered

¶22

by the prayer made in W.P.No.2124 of 2005, those two writ petitions are also disposed of in terms thereof. It is open to respondent No.5 – auction purchaser to make a representation, as aforementioned, to the concerned authority of the Government within a period of four weeks from today. The concerned authority shall consider and decide the representation as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation. It is needless to mention that the concerned authority shall decide the representation on merits and strictly in accordance with law. While granting the liberty we shall not be understood to have examined respondent No.5 – auction purchaser’s right in making representation, as aforementioned.”

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

______________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ

¶25

__________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶26

Date: 02.03.2016 Es

Sadhu Damayanthi, v. The Govt. of a.P., rep.by its Secretary, Co-op. Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu Damayanthi, v. The Govt. of a.P., rep.by its Secretary, Co-op. Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. Unitgrasilene Division Vs The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary

Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society-Mahabubnagar Vs The State of Telangna, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Koya Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana represented by Principal

Ankal Reddy Memorial Hall, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Sadhu Rama Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

Shake Nazeer Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh