Dismissed

G Ramavatharam and 8 Others v. State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC2 Dec 2021WP/31724/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection by the District Co-operative Officer of members' request to authorize them to prosecute pending cases. Court dismissed the petition, noting record showed disputes necessitating a person-in-charge and lack of claims by petitioners to implead in other courts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs. Official directed to expedite voter list finalization and conduct elections.

G Ramavatharam and 8 Others Vs State of Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF DECEIUBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICET. VINOD KUMAR}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO :31724 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

G Ramavatharam, Sio^{Banaiah, Aged63 years, Rl/o. 303,Sri Tirurnal-aTowers,} z. Vaniina Colonv, Chinnathokatta i. tiaisrno-n'do, sto T,^{Packeeriah, AgAd New Bowehpally, Secunderabad -about63 years, - 5-00011'Occ} .^Retired - (Pidi Emoiovee]tvtemtjer^-'no. iaol HAECHSL R/o H.No.zs2, (Regd. No.-TBC-269) l/embership comsary^Bazaqr,New N_umber^Bowenpally, 154, Secunderabad.K.

¶8

S. Secunderabad.K.^-Sii Ram, Slo.^{Late K R K Murthy, Aged44 years,Occ PrivateEmployee} - fr1e'nOet HAECHSL iRegd No. TBC'-269"), l/ern6ership No 583, PJo Flat No' +gA, iirumata Harmohy, Beside^{SaketTowers, ECIL - Hyderabad'}

¶9

1. P;;h;i; u;nax"l c6l'ol Si; F;a^{swflv. nsed. ibout 67, occ Retired} Emoiovtell,remoer^{uArcHSL(Regd.No. TBC-260),Memb-ershrp-No791, Rl/o'} H. No.-8-4-38011I191A,^{Premnagar, Erragadda, Hyderablc - su-uulz'.} -

¶10

1. Iv1d. Khaleel,^{S/o. Md' Jaffer, Agedabout.58} .years,^{occ. RetireoE,mployee'} " M;r'b;;HAec-nsr- (negd. tt<i. rEC-zosl, MemtiershipNo. 153, F/o' H No 18OZ-OOSIASIA, Amannbgal,^{Yakutpura, Hyderabad - 500023'}

¶11

1. c. F;m^{-tfiuiinv,5lo "couind Swqly,4s9d.q0vears, occ' RetiredEmplovee'} ' rr,fero", HnEirfsf- (R"sd. No- T80-26-9)' Menibership No 300, Fl/o Sy 77' HafeezPet Village,^{R R Dist}

¶12

7 R;mrafiAti. Sl5 Late Habeebuddin,^{Aged 45 years,OT:'Employ-ee,.Member} ' ijleflnSl tnegolNo. TBC-269), Mem6ership No. 762, F/o' Sv' 77, Hateezpet Villaoe. R R Dist.

¶13

a. " P."Riii/i'Liimi, irnEEfist ine<io. wlo. tlo.^P. TBc-269) Meribership^{Prakash, Aged 60 years,} No. 486,^o-cc F/o^{House vvfie,.Member} Sv 77, Hafeezpet Villaoe. R R Dist.

¶14

s. i. T'i;t;' n"oov,^{slo. chandraReddy,Aged about 56 years, occu'Retired} Employee,^Rl/o. S^{R Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶15

...'ET,T.ONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

state of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Principal secretary, Agricultureandcooperation} (Cooo ll). Secietariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad'

¶18

Z. i-n"etoriimii.ionerldrbooperation^{and'Registrar od Cooperative.Societies,} - r.[nciina iZO. Crufratatpi auilding Nizam-Shahi Road, Nampally_- Hyderabad. s oIJui"v-ClqiitilrTOiuiiioniiCooper5tire^{Officer,HyderabadWest Division, Laxmi} Co'mplex, ABlDs,^{Hyderabad 500001.}

¶19

+. o[iiiiiCoopeialve'onicer,^{Ranga Reddy District,Gagan Vihar,Nampallv-} Hvderabad.

¶20

ijtiilib;;perative^{Officer,tVledchel-MalkajigiriDistrict, CollectorateComplex,} - keesiraVitiage and Mandal, Medchel Malkajigiri District' O. ine tlinOusta"n^{neronJuiiCsimployeesCoope:rative HousingSociety Ltd.,,Rep.} - fiv=,ti Otiitiir piC, SV. No. 77, Hatdezper Viliage of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

..,RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 oI^{lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the HighCourt may be pleasedto} issue writ or order^{or directionmore particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF} MANDAMUS declaring^{the action of Respondents 1to 6 more particularlythe} Respondent No.6^{in rejectingthe application dated 09/09/2021of the petitionersto} authorize them^{to defend andprosecute the matters pending before severalcourts} including High^{Court and Supreme Courtwithout assigningany cogent reasons} inspite of this Hon',ble^{High court directed them to consider representationdated}

¶23

16101t2021 in^{which the Petitionerssought for authorizethem to prosecute the} matterspendingbeforeseveralcourtsbyorderdatedlslosl2o2linW'P-No-19292of 2021 isbad,^{arbitrary, void. illegal and against the principles of naturaljustice as well} as violation of^{order of this Hon'ble High courtand Article300Aof the constitution of} lndiaconsequentlydirecttherespondentslto6toauthorizetheMembersofthe society to^{prosecute the pending cases as well as fresh cases to be filed before the} courtsincludingthisHon.bteHighCourt,supremeCourtandanyspecialcourtor Tribunals and constrain^{legal action against encroachers'}

¶24

IA NO: 10F 2021

¶25

Petition under section^{151 cPC praying that in the circurnstancesstated in the} affidavit filed in^{supportof the petition,the High court maybe pleased to directthe} Respondent No.2 to^{4 to authorize the members of the society to defend and} prosecute the cases^pending as^{well as to be filed before the courts,tribunals and} authorities^{pendingdisposal of thisWritPetition.}

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI' VEMUGANTI MAHESH KUMAR}

¶27

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.1to 5: GP FOR COOPERATION}

¶28

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.6:NONEAPPEARED}

¶29

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE^T,VINODKUMAR

¶32

WRIT PETITION^N o.3L724^ot2021

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This Writ Petition^{is fileddeclaringthe action of respondentNos'1} to 6, in^{particularthe 6rh respondent,in rejecting the application, dated} 09.09.2021, filed^{by the petitioners,to authorizethem to defend and} prosecutethematterspendingbeforeseveralCourts,includingtheHigh Court and^{the SupremeCourt, without assigningany cogent reasons' in} spite of the 6th^{respondent beingdirected by this cou* in w.P.No.19292} of202|byconsideringtherepresentationofthepetitioners,dated 16.01.2021.

¶35

Heard^{learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned} Government^{Pleaderfor Co-operation, appearing for respondentNos'1} and 2, and^{with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing} and disposal^{at the stageof admission'}

¶36

The^{petitioners would contendthat they wereMembers of the} 6th respondent^{Society, which is formed in the year1980'for the purpose} of^{purchaseof house site plots for lts members' numbering to around} 900; that^{the lvlanaging Commltteeof the said Society was superseded by} the official^{respondents and in its place, Person-in-Chargewas appointed;} and that^{the said Person-in-Chargeappointed is not conductingthe affairs} in the interest^{of membersof the Society, as a result of which, theland} purchased by the^{Society in an extent of Acs'62 06 guntas in Survey} N0.77 of Hafeezpet^{Village, Serilingampally Mandal'Ranga ReddyDistrict'} is belng^{grabbed by the land grabbers affectingthe rights and interests of}

¶37

¶38

the petitioners for whose benefit the said rand was purchased by the 6*, respondent Society, wherein the petitioners were also allotted plots.

¶39

By the impugned proceedings, dated 08.10,2021, the 4th respondent disposed of the representation of the petitioners, pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.p.No.19292 of 202t, dated 18.08.2021 informing the petitioners that the said apprication fired by the petitioners to authorize the petitioners/members to work under the control of the District co-operative officer, Medchar-tviarkajgiri to prosecute the cases in respect of the society, cannot be entertained, as there are several disputes among the members of the Society and it is for the said reason, the Managing Committee of the said Socjety was superseded and placed in the hands of person-in-Charge of the committee to manage the affairs without influence of djfferent groups of the members of the Society.

¶40

By the said communicatjon, the 4th respondent also stated that officiar appointed as person-in-Charge of the Committee would take up the process of preparation of the voters list of the Society as per the provisions of Rure 22 of the Terangana co-operative societies Rures, 1g64, and lhereafter, conduct electjon to the Society, as per the bye_laws and handover the affairs of the Society to the sajd elected body to manage by themselves. Thus, the petitioners, who are members of the said Society, cannot be permitted to work under the contror of the District Co-operative Officer to prosecute the cases.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made, as above, considering the fact thar the petitioners are one among the 900 and odd members of the society and if the petitioners Feel that their interest is getting aFfected, it is

¶42

¶43

¶44

always open for^them to^{file lmpleadpetitionin various proceedings,} which are stated to be^{pending before various Courtsand are not being} prosecuted by the Person-in-Charge^{in a proper manner. It is not shown} to this Court of the^{petitioners making/filingany application in the} proceedings pending before various^{Courts seeking their impleadment} therein and the^{said applicationshave not been consideredby the} concerned Courts

¶45

In view of the above,^{the claimof the petitionersto work under the} control of the^{District co-operativeofficer, Medchal- Malkaigiri District,} and rejection^{of the said requestby the 4d'respondent doesnot appearto} thisCourtassufferingfromanyinfirmitywarrantinginterference,more so, when it^{has beenrecordedby the 4Lh respondentthat there are} multiple^{groups prevailingin the Society and it is for the said reason' the} affairsoftheManagingCommitteeofthesocietyWeresupersededand placed in the hands of^{Person-in-Charge'}

¶46

B. Hence, the^{wrlt petltion is devoid of merit and is accordingly} dismissed.^{However, it is needlessto mention that since the 4th} respondenthasplacedthesocietyinthehandsofPerson.in-Charge,the said official^{shall takestepsto finalizethe voters list of the membersof} the Society^{and also to conduct electionsand place the managementof} the society^{in the handsof such elected body as expeditiouslyas possible'} since the Society^{is requiredto be run by an elected body and cannot be} permitted to be run^{by appointing a Person-in-Charge'}

¶47

¶48

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the

¶49

light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶50

¶51

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT RE ISTRA //TRUE COPY//

¶52

SECTION ICER

¶53

To,

¶54

One CC to Sri Vemuganti^{Mahesh Kumar, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶55

Two CCs to GP for Cboperation,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

Two CD Copies

¶57

One Spare Copy

CHR Bs1 r/,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211212021

ORDER

E r;i*i'
'{
r.", t
i 1[ '-ticl0?l

¶63

W.P.No.31724 ot 2021

¶64

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

\ (V

G Ramavatharam and 8 Others v. State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Ramavatharam and 8 Others v. State of Telangana and 5 Others

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. Donthi Reddy Anitha Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary

Jilkapally Laxman Vs The Chief General Manger(Commercial)

Kancharla Gopala Krishna Rao Vs Government of India

Praja Pata Shala Educational Society Vs The District Registrar Officer and 2 Others

S. Pandu Ranga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Sri Darshanala Kumar Vs The State of Telangana