Disposed

Thungam Venkaiah and 2 Others v. the State of Telanagana and 6 Others

Telangana HC10 Aug 2020WP/6318/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice for skill test without General Body resolution was closed. Counsel for respondents undertook to furnish a list of admitted members. The court directed responses but left discretions on remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; respondent undertook to furnish list of admitted members; petitioners left to work out legal remedies.

Thungam Venkaiah and 2 Others Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

IVONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 6318 OF 2020

¶6

Between

¶7

1 Thungam Venkaiah, S/o Ramaiah, Aged about 46^years, Occ: Ex- General Secretary Fishermen Cooperative Society, lVattampally, R/o [Vattampally^Village and lt/andal, Suryapet District.

¶8

2 Karne Venkateswarlu, S/o Venkaiah, Aged about 47^years, Occ: [Vember, Fishermen Cooperative Society, [Vattampally, R/o lVattampally Village and lt/andal, S uryapet District.

¶9

3 Chinthala Nagaiah, S/o Ramakotaiah, Aged about 40^years, Occ:^lVlember, Fishermen Cooperative Society, lVattampally, R/o lVattampally Village and lvandal' Suryapet District'

¶10

...pETrroNERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telanagana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Fisheries Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶13

2, The Commissioner of Fisheries, Telangana State, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Joint Director Fisheries, Telangana State, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The District Fisheries Officer, Suryapet, At Suryapet District.

¶16

5 The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Suryapet, At Suryapet District.

¶17

6 The District Collector, Suryapet at Suryapet District. 7 The Fishermen Cooperative Society, lVattampally, Rep. by Personal ln-charge, lVattampally Village and lMandal, Suryapet District.

¶18

...RES'ONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, questioning the Notice dt 13/03/2020 vide No.64OlBl2019 of Sth respondent on for conducting skill test for admission of new members into the^7th respondent society, without resolution of the General Body, without considering the representation of petitioner dt 1010212020 and contrarily to Rule 12-A of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, arbitrary, illegal and Violation of Principles of natural Justices and consequently set-aside the Notice dt 13.03.2020 vide No.64OlBl2019 of Sth respondent on for conducting skill test for admission of new members into the 7th respondent society.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Notice dt 1310312020 vide No.6401812019 of Sth respondent on for conducting skill test for admission of new members into the 7th respondent society, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶22

lt2il

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto direct} the 6th Respondents to consider the^{representationof petition er dl 1010212020,} pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl.^{K. PRADEEP REDDY}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR^FISHERIES

¶27

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE CHALLAKODANDA RAM} W RIT PE^{TITIONNo631Iof2020}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ^{Petition is filed questioning the notice dated} 13.03.2020^{issued by the 5th respondentfor conductingskill test} for admission^{of new membersinto the 7th respondentSociety} without^{Resolutionof the General Body and withoutconsidering} of the^{petitionersdated 10'02'2020'as} the rePresentation arbitrarY^{and illegal'}

¶31

Heard^{lea rned} counsel^{for the petitioners and learned} Government^{Pleader for Fishe ries'}

¶32

Learned^{counsel for the petitioners' drawing attentionto} the averments^{in para 4 of the counter-affidavit' wherein it was} BodY Meeting^{was conducted on} stated that^{the General} unanimouslY^{resolved to enrol 121} 16.10.2019^{and itwas} members^{includingthelegal representativesof rhe deceased} members^{of the Society, points out that the list of the members} which is^{said to have been enclosed' has not been furnished} either to^{the Court or to his clients The learned counselwould} submit that^{if the list is furnishedto the petitioners' they would} avail the^{remedies as available in law The learned Government} Pleader while^{expressingno objection'undertakesto furnisha} copy of the^{list of the members who hao been admitted by the} SocietY.

¶33

In the light^{of the respective submissions'the Writ Petition} is closed with^{a directionto the learned GovernmentPleader to} e-mail a^{copy of the list of the members as availablewith the} offlce of^{the DistrictFisheriesDevelopmentofflcer to the learned}

¶34

counsel for the petitioners and it ls left open to the petitioners to work out the remedies as available in law, No costs,

¶35

lvliscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^RE G STRAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY// SECTION CER

¶38

To,

¶39

One CC to Sri^{K. Pradeep Reddy Advocate [OPUC]^} z.TwoCCstotheGPforFisheries.HighCourtfortheStateollelanganaal Hyderabad.^(OUT) 3. Two CD CoPies

CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 0/0812020

ORDER

o s 1 H € S T4
Y
Jo
2 4 Aljljr0r0
*
1-
T t',6O

¶46

W.P.No.6318 of 2020

¶47

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

t
t

Thungam Venkaiah and 2 Others v. the State of Telanagana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thungam Venkaiah and 2 Others v. the State of Telanagana and 6 Others

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

Jonna Raji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kanchu Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

A.Ranga Reddy Vs the State of Tg

Nanna Umadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Yapachettu Balaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Ganta Sunith Reddy Vs The State of Telangana