Dismissed

P.Venugopal Goud and 2 Others v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and 3 Others

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023WP/28833/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of a non-official Provisional Inspecting Committee in a cooperative society. The court held that the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication and dismissed the petition as infructuous without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs.

P.Venugopal Goud and 2 Others Vs The Commissioner of… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28833 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.Venugopal Goud, S/o Late Ramulu, Aged about 59 Yrs., Occ. Business, N o 8-2-682132/59, Road No.¹ 2, N. B. Nag ar, B anjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

B. Srihari Goud, S/o Krishna Goud, Aged about 44 Yrs., Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No.6-3-667/3, Kummara Basthi Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶10

E.Yadaiah Goud, S/o E.Mallaiah Goud, Aged about 67 Yrs., Occ. Business, No 6-3-12431139/1, Opposite to Ra1 Bhavan, M.S.Maktha, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PET!TIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Cohmissioner of Prohibition and Excise , State of Telagnana, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Functional Registrar/District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Registrar/Audit Officer, Office of the Divisional Cooperative Office, Secunderabad Division, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

M/s. Toddy Tapper Cooperative Society Limited, Chintal Basthi, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District which Regd.No.ES/8/2Ol93lHyd. Rep. by its PIC

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actron of the respondents 1 to 3 for failure to manage the affairs of the 4th respondent society in accordance with the rules and appointing ineligible defacto PIC committee members and extending the term beyond one year without permission of the Government which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the settled^principles of rules laid down under Section 32 (7) (a) (i) (b) of the TCS Act,1964 and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint an official PIC committee in^place of non official PIC committee members who are continuing illegally duly directing to conduct

¶18

proper enquiry for preparation of valid voter list for ensuing elections to the 4th respondent society

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

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 direct the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint an official plc committee in place of non official Plc committee members who are continuing illegally duly directing to conduct proper enquiry for preparation of valid voter list for ensuing elections to the 4th respondent society, pending disposal of the above petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T. KISTAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: Gp FOR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M.A.K MUKHEED The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

i j

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶24

WRIT PTTITION No.28833 of 2O2l

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing,

¶27

Sri T.Kistaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶28

Recording the said submission, the writ petition

¶29

is dismissed as infructuous. No costs

¶30

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

SO/-8. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR l/rRUE coPY// L-D sEcrloN^oFFlcER

¶33

to'r. ,o CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITISN EXCISE 'High Court for the State of , +;;:telA"b[^{PSftt33.L?"riU,vEsocrEry,Hishcourt ror the state or} , l:ret'tH,S:3i#^EY[e1"qq" 1e1u^c] ;. 6n; Cc io^{snr. rvr'A'k' tt'turHeED'Advocate [oPUC]}

¶34

Two CD^CoPies

BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211112023

ORDER

WP.No.28833 of 2021

{.n e srArG
(t
o
cf .L
? : N0! 2tl2l
.+
t
t
cEsPn1C

¶41

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

_)
\t )p))

P.Venugopal Goud and 2 Others v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Venugopal Goud and 2 Others v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and 3 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

The Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Vs S. Padma Reddy (M.S.No.4792)

Smt.a.Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Jp Agarwalla Family Trust Vs The State of Telangana

K. Chandraiah, Vs Mr. Rajatha Kumar, I.A.S.

Bachu Laxman Vs Sri Sri C.v.Anand I.P.S.

Social Justice Party of India Vs The State of Telangana