Dismissed

T. Sheshnarayan, v. Government of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023WP/24966/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed challenging the refusal to conduct elections in a club after the expiry of the term. The court held that internal disputes require adjudication in civil courts, and the relief no longer survives due to the passage of time.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an application seeking revival of the Writ Petition if any cause survives.

T. Sheshnarayan, Vs Government of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRt^{JUSTICEC.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.: 24966^{OF 2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Sheshnarayan, S/o^{T.S.N. SwamyAged 57 years, OccBusiness R/o 3-4-} 51 2'l 3, Barkatpura^Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Govemment of Telangana,^{Representedby its PrincipalSecretary Youth} Services and Sports^{Dept.Seiretariat BuildingHyderabad.}

¶12

2 Sports Authority of Andhra^{Pradesh, Representedby its ChairmanL.B'} Stadium, Hyderabad

¶13

Fateh Maidan Club,^{L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad (no relief sought againstR3} arrayed as Proper^{and necessaryPa(y)}

¶14

" J. pent iious'e, Prithvirai Reddv, Laprjlama S/o J. Aprtmetns Road^{Sriram ReddyAged} No.'12,^{54 years,} Baniara Hills^Occ. Hyderabad'^{Business Fl/o}

¶15

- Srikishan Sharma,^{S/o Mahaveer Pershad Aged 67 yeaq,R/.oC2 Block-A} Amrutha enclave 8-2-317^{Road No.14, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad'}

¶16

G. Surya Mohan,^{S/o Gopalakrishnayya Aged7--1 ye-ars, Occ- Business.Fi/o.} - trlo. ftdf tto.1, My Home Hitt View Rriartments, Raj Bhavan road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶17

M. Ramana Rao,^{S/o ShankaraRao,Aged 43 years, FlatNo.55, Adarshnagar} Hyderabad.

¶18

Ch. Ravinder Reddy,^{S/o Shankar Reddy, Aged 64 years, R/o Flat No' 74,} Kiran Enclave, Sikh^{village,Secunderabad.}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article^{226 ot the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue writ, order direction^{rnore particular in the nature of writ of} mandamus declaring^{act,actions of the respondents4,5 & 7 in not permittingto} conduct elections^{for 6 membersof Executivecommitteeof RespondentNo3} club after expiry of^{the termin 2oo7 thereby planting Respondent No 8 illegally}

¶21

in the club as arbitrary, capricious, ultravirous, malafide, illegal and I\ONEST in the interest of justice.

¶22

LA. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 312,14 oF 20141

¶23

Petition under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petiiiorr, the H igh Court may be pleased to restrain Respondent 4,5,7 & g from any acti ng, conducting fun ction and business of Respondent no.3 Fateh Maidan Cl ub, thereby appoi nt Adhoc Committee/ Advocate Commissioner .lo final ise appropriate list of valid eligible voters to cond uct elections for 6 nrembers of Executive Com miltee Respondent No.3 Fateh Maidan Club in the interest of justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SR! MIR MASOOD KHAN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR YOUTH & SPORTS

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI HARI SREEDHAR,

¶27

SC FOR SPORTS AUTHORITY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M. KARUNA SAGAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI SRtNIVASA MURTHY CHEEDELLA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.3,5,7 & g: - - - -

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR REDDY

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.24966 of 2OL4

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution^of

¶37

India, is frled by the petitioner, seeking the following^relief

¶38

*...to issue wit order or direclion more Particularlg in the nature of writ of mandamus^{declaring lheo.cts,actions of the respondents4, 5} and 7 in not permittlng to conduct eleclions Jor^6membersof Executlue Commtttee of Respoulent No.3 Club after^{e-rpiryoJ the} tenn in 2OO7 therebg planttng Respondent No.8 itlegallg in the club as arbitrary, capricious, ultraurous, malaf(le, llegat and^{NONESTin the} interest of^justice.. -.'

¶39

The respondent No.3 is a societl' registered^{under Societies} Registration Act vide RegistraLion No.2 t 1/69 and its^characteris recreation club with 3500 members on rolls,^{who have voling rights.} It is the case of the pelitioner that as^per by-laws^{of respondentNo.3,} respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7^were clcctcd in^{the elections conducted in} the year 2OO7. lL is further casc of^petitioner that^{even after expiry of} the term, respondent Nos.4, 5,7 and 8 have been^{using their muscle} power to run the club and in the extraordinary^general body meeting held on 28.O3.2OO9, rvhich was attended by^{115 permanent} members, a resolution was^passed and ad^{hoc committee was} appointed to manage day-to-day^affairs o[^{the club in accordance} with rules and by-laws. Aggrieved by the same,^{the respondentNo.4} has filed O.P.No.72 I l2OOg on the file of Ill^{AdditionalChief Judge,}

¶40

¶41

City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking declaration tl-rat the resrolution dated 28.03.2009 passed by general body as illegal, arbirrzLry and non est. The said suit rvas dismissed vide ordcr dated 29.013.201l. Challcngi.g the same, thc respondent No.4 filecl C.R.p.Nos.2(iS, 52 I and.8O4/2012 and the said C.R.ps u,ere disposed of by this Courr. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 issued it lettcr No.SAAP/FMC.EeLlStS6/2Ot2 dated IO.A4.2O12 conver:.ing a meeting on 18.O4.2O12 at the SAAp olIice and thercby taking charge of the said club. 'Ihereafter, the respo.dent No.2 issued a letter vide SAAP/E&L/5a47 I2OOB datcd 18.O4.2012 stating rhar irs Estare Olficer took charge of the club. It is further case of the petition,:r that -. respondent No.4 by playing fraud and suppressing Lhe materia I facts filed Contei:ipt Case and obtained an order datcd 05. 12.2012.

¶42

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7 illegally planted respondent No.g and even alter expiry of the term, respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7 are not permitting to conduct elections for 6 members of Executive Committee of respondent No.3_ club

¶43

A reading of the q'rit atfidavit discloses that there are st:rious disputes with regard to the management of the respondent No.3_ club. The inter se disputes among the management of the resporldent No.3-club have to be decided in a properly instituted O.p before the

¶44

competent Court but not in this writ^{petition. Sinceno interimorder} was granted in this Writ Petition, this Court^{is of the opinion that} due to efflux of tirne, the^{relief sought in the Writ Petitionno longer} survlves.

¶45

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as^infructuous- However, the petitioner is^{granted liberty to file an application} seeking revival of the Writ^{Petition, if anycause survives.}

¶46

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any, shall}

¶47

stand closed. No order as to costs

¶48

SD/.T.JAYASREE AssrsrANrs"?In* /

¶49

//TRUE COPYII

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To, '1. One CC to SRt MtR MA-S_O_O_?.KHAN, Advocate [OPUC] ? 9NU^{CC tO SRI HARI SREEDHAE} S-i iiJREbtHiS NUTHORITY TOPUCI 3. one cc to SRlsRtNtvA.-sA Uq!!f cFGEoeIiX, aor"l;i-"'rbplidi "", 1 9ne^{CC ro SRt M. KARUNA.sAcni,} nouo-JrT.-ioTuct 5. I*.o CCs to Gp FOR you.rH & Sponi-s, i6i 'i,'|^I b1urt^vvv ror tre State of ^ Telan_g_ana at Hydenabad. IOUTI^- 6. Two CD Cooies r.MBN

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211112023

ORDER

WP.No.24966 of 2014

1 g-'iiATE
q o
f
I B ,}LT ?t8
r)
*
-,..$
+r DI]
tP-

¶57

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS CdG9"s J -A'V

T. Sheshnarayan, v. Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Sheshnarayan, v. Government of Telangana

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

Nalgonda District Cricket Association Vs The Hyderabad Cricket Association (Hca)

Raghu Boda Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Siadath Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Miyapur Beauty And Spa Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. D. Kiran Kumar, Vs State of Telangana

Jinna Srikanth, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh