Disposed

Mudiraj Matsya Paresrameka Singam v. The Assistant Director of Fisheries and Ex-Officio Deputy

Telangana HC11 Apr 2023WP/1492/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a Mandamus directing the authorities to cancel the fraudulent registration of a cooperative society based on an enquiry report. The Court directed the District Fisheries Officer to pass appropriate orders after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Fisheries Officer to pass appropriate orders on the enquiry report within six months after giving opportunity to parties.

Mudiraj Matsya Paresrameka Singam Vs The Assistant… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^330s ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 149 20F 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mudira^j JVlatsya Paresrameka Qngam, (Regd.No. 71 0/20 1 4) H. NO 3- 1 57 t 1 lB, le:r{g Iglgphgne^{Exchange,_Bat-ajiNdgar; Viltageand tvianaaiCtraifesa-r,} R.H.Uastrict, Rep.. by its President, Barla Hari Shanker, Sio. tat.j B'Llngamaiah, aged 41 years'

¶9

...pETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

-1. The Assistant Director of Fisheries & Ex-Officio Deputy, Registrar of Co_ operative Societies, Rangareddy District, office at Matlya B"havan, Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyd6rabad, Telanqana State.

¶12

The Commissioner of Fisheribs, Matsya Bhav-an, Shantinagar, tvlasab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

Smt.lvlekala Sulatha Wo. Mekala Narsing Rao, Ex-surpanch, Qlampanchayath^{Ghatkesar,Ryo.H. No. i0-1 z4li, Amb'edkar'Nagar,} Ghatkesar, R.R.District, Telanoana State.

¶14

The Executive Officer, Grampinchaydth, Ghatkesar, R.R.District, Telangana State.

¶15

The Primary Fishetmen Cooperative Society Limited, Ghatkesar (V) of Ghatkesar (M) of Rangareddy District, (Reg'd.N o.17Ot12t2O131. R'e6. Uv rts President Sri^pentam Eashwar S/o. uaitaiSn, H.NO.7_124, Ctiitt<esar.'^- R.R.District, Telangana State.

¶16

The District Collector (Parrchayath Wing), R.R.District, at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶17

The State of Telangana, rep. by its principal Secretary, Animal Husbandrv & Fisheries Departrnent, Telangaha Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India ,rrrilnt:[:i?"tll: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to issue necessary directions to the respondents herein to take appropriate steps for cancellation of the fraudulent 5th respondent society who obtained registration by tampering the official records of the Grampanchayath as per the report of the enquiry officer Lr.No.FDo/tr//Enquiry/2o13 Dr.31-12-2o13, even after no action was initiated by the 1st respondent for cancellation of the registration of the 5th respondent society as highly illegal, unconstitutional, against

¶19

the principles of natu al^justice, equity and fair play and^pra ys to set aside the registration of lhr 5th respondent society with 'egistration No. (Regd.No.1 70/1 i).12{t1: )

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OE 2016(W^)MP. NO: 1880 OF 2016)

¶21

Petition urrder f ection 151 CPC praying that in the c rcunstances stated in the affidavit filed in :;u rport of the petition, the High Court miry rer^plerased to direct the 1st respondent hr^rein to take appropriate steps based on the r-'nquiry officer report Lr.No.Ft)O/lt/, Enquiry/2013 Dt.31-12-2013, for canr:elleLtion of the registration of tl-re rer pondent society forthwith, pending orde r cr orders as this Hon'ble Court may de, rm fit and proper in the circumstances of th3 case. Counsel for the Petiti rner: SRI GURRAM SRINIVAS, COUNSI:|-. FCIR SRI CH. GANESH

¶22

Counsel for Respond:rnt Nos. 1.2 &7: AGP FOR FISHERIES

¶23

Counsel for Respond:rnt Nos. 3 & 4: SRI P. KISHORE RAO

¶24

Counsel for Respond:rnt No. 5: SRI L. HARISH

¶25

Counsel for Respondlnt No. 6: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RA.i & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶26

The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS^RAO

¶28

W.P.No. 1492 of 2016

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate steps for cancellation of the fraudulent^5th respondent society who obtained registration by tampering the official records of the Grampanchayath as per the report of the enquiry^oflicer Lr.No.FDO/M/Enquiry/2ol3 dated 31. 12.2013,^even after no action was initiated by the^{1"t respondentfor} cancellation of the registrailon of the^{5th respondent} . rf society as highly illegal, unconstitutional,^{against the} principles o[ natural^justice.

¶31

Heard Sri Gurram Srinivas,^{learned counsel} appearing for Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned^{counselfor the} petitioner, learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for} Fisheries appearing for respondent^{Nos. l, 2and' 7,} learned Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Panchayath}

¶32

¶33

Raj aplteztri ng lbr respondent No.6, Sri p. I(ishor-c Rao, learnecl lit;rnding counsel appearing [or rr:spcndent Nos.3 & I and Sri L. Harish, lt:arne cl counsel appearin6; f ,r 5Lt. r<:spondertt society.

¶34

Lr:arnr d counsel lor the petitiont:r submi._s that basing on he cornplaint of the petitroner, Assistant Dilector ol Frsheries, Ranga Rcddy Distric:t r,tpgrointed Fisheri,:s [] r:r,eloprnent Officer, Mominpet irs Enquiry Officcr, to :onduct erlquily and the Enqttirv Officer submit tei his r.epor t vide

¶35

Lr.No.FDO/ l\4/Enquiry/2013, dared 3t .12.:t(, 13. The learned cou resel lor thc petitior-rer reques[s tiris Court withoul grtir:g ir-rto tl-re rnerits of the case, lc, ,:lirr:ct the concerrreci lfficer lo take appropriatc der:ision basing upon tLIe al, rtve said enquiry rcpor.t, il1 elccorlirnc,e with 1avi,.

¶36

ThLe lc trlned Assistant Governme.nt [,lr,,ader for Fisherir:s sr rbmits that the District Fish,:r-ies; ()fficer, Medchal-lvl lkajgiri District, is competent :rlhority to

¶37

¶38

take a decision and requested the Court to direct him

¶39

to pass appropriate orders by fixing reasonable time.

¶40

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5-society, submits that the allegations made by the petitioner's Sangam is not true and correct and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶42

Having regard to the rival contentions made by the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is'disposed of directing the District Fisheries Officer, Medchal-Ma-lkajgiri District, to pass appropriate orders on the enquiry report vide Lr.No.FDO/M/Enq.uiry/2013, submitted by the Fisheries Development Oflicer, Morninpet, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5-society,

¶43

¶44

within a p€ riod of Six (06) months frorr: thr: clate of

¶45

receipt of a :opy of this order

¶46

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There

¶47

shal1 be n,)^,)rder as to costs

¶48

Misc,:11 aleous petitions, if any, perrdinrl 1n this

¶49

writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶50

SD/- MOHD' SAITIAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISIANT REGISTBAR //TRUE COPY/ I (>)'---'-

¶51

:;E:CTION OFFICER

¶52

To, '1 . The Assisl.anl D 'ector of Fisheries^{& Ex-Officio Deputy'Rr;g strar of Co-} ,es. Ranoareddv^{District, office at lVlats /a Jt'avitn,}

¶53

operative^,Socrie. sab Tan"k. Hvd6rabad,^{TelanganaStat'-''}

¶54

Shantinagar,^lvli

¶55

1. The Comrnissio '"r"or^{Fi.ri"riLi,v"t.y,Bhavin,Shantinagr"r,[t4asab Tank'}

¶56

Hvderaba,l. Tel rnoana State.

¶57

1. The Presirient,^I i.iirr* f i.f',errnen Cooperative Soc,ety Li'nr.ed. Ghatkesar (V) of Ghzrtkesa rvti of Ranoareddv^{Diitrict, (Regd.\o17')/212013)'}

¶58

1. ihe Distrir:t Fist erie's Officerl tvledhcal-Malkajgiri^Distrir:t' 5. One CC to^{Sri (} h Ganesh Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CCs^{to (lP} For Fisheries^(TG) ,High^{Court for the :itate ot elangana'} touTl

¶59

1. Two CCs to^(]F For Panchayat^{Raj & Rural Developmernt,High Court for the} State of Telang ;rna. IOUT'I

¶60

1. One CC to^S'it Haiish, Advocate(OPUC)

¶61

'. Kishore Rao,^{Advocate(OPUC)}

¶62

One CC h:^S'it

¶63

10.Two CD OoPiet

MBC GJP

o{?

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110412023

.'a
.s i'
.:
it
\ l. )
''t

¶69

ORDER

¶70

WP.No .1492 of 2016

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE WIlIT PETITION

¶72

WlTl{rf,t,T COSTS

Mudiraj Matsya Paresrameka Singam v. The Assistant Director of Fisheries and Ex-Officio Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudiraj Matsya Paresrameka Singam v. The Assistant Director of Fisheries and Ex-Officio Deputy

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

Vikesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Gitte Namdev Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

M/s. Seghani Agro Tech Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Nagishettigari Kashiram Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Yellavula Paparao Vs The State of Telangana

Nalluri Ramakrishna, Vs Government of a.P., repre., by its Principal Secretary