Disposed

S.Gopal v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Oct 2024WP/1677/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an arbitrary order by a cooperative society official was disposed of as the impugned order was already set aside in a prior judgment. Liberty granted to respondents to initiate action against petitioner society.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty granted to official respondents to initiate action against society if involved in irregularities.

S.Gopal Vs State of Telangana — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR oF rELANGANA ot (Speciat Originat "btJ^toBHE Ju;sdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWo rHousAND AND rwErvr#dJn-,-

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOi 1677 oF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

fli}:f ,fi;fi fhT,:Eff^{"Jiii'sd+i?l|v,s,H,ffiY:;:{l"iT,rs:j}

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1 :;?f,",,'#,3l8t3$?Si,:'":t::,.ltil:i,.,11;?pa,^secretary, Deparrment or

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Coor lerangana state, Hyderab:::"'on^{and Registrar of cooperative} societies,

¶13

3 I::A13[ff 3il"f:'J1$lll?t]$?,pJs;,iJ,[",3?mmissionerror

¶14

¶15

[:{*gffiL]rvff:,t,aqtiis]:aTf;p:j:llli,is,:.Jr?Soce,y

¶16

5 fi lt}T:r4,3.imiiil,lf^{iif;.,.13;*"s.lfl;F;Si,b:?:i,f,} 33:i65years,

¶17

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶18

. petition under Articre 226-- of the constitution of rndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit riEJ in"r"i,tn, the High court mav be pleased to issue a writ. an order or oirecron, rn'oie particurarry one in the nature Writ of lVlandamus declaring th"^'";"; ";; the 3rd respondent in Rc No 20903/2012-HR-2. dated"tT-1i-2oiir. iilgar, arbitrarv, who,v withour lurisdiction' contrarv to the previ5isns or *,. ieiaig"ra co operative societies Act, 1964, and unconstiturio,irirna.oln;;o;;d:", aside the same.

¶19

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Petition under section 151 cPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto} stay all further^{proceedings pursuant} to the^{order of the 3rd respondentin} Rc.No.20903/2012-HR-2,^{dated 17-10-2017, pendingdisposalof thr: writ petition}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 to 3: ASST. GP FOR COOPERATION}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: SRI V. VENUGOPALARAO}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5:^{SRI CHANDRA SENA REDDY PRODDUTOR} (PARTY IN PERSON)

¶26

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶27

¶28

¶29

SK, J W.P.No.l677^{of 20 18}

¶30

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH}

¶31

WRIT PEIITI^{ON No.l677 of2OLB}

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ^{petition is filed seeking to declare the} order of the^{respondent No.3 in Rc'No'209O312012-} HR-2 dated^{17-lO.2Ol7 as illegaland arbitrary'}

¶34

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitioner' learned} Assistant Government^{Pleader for Co-operation'Sri V'} Venugopala^{Rao, learned counsel for the respondent} No.4 and the^{respondentNo'5-Party-in-person'} 3. The respondent^{No.5-party-in-personhas filed a} memo in USR^{No.94840of 2024 stating that against} the impugned^{orderdated 17' lO'2O17 , the respondent} No.4 herein^{hled W.P.No} '37573^{of 2Ol7 and the same} was allowed on^{10.03.2020setting aside the impugned} order dated^{l7.LO.2Ol7 and granted liberty to the} official respondents^{toinitiate action againstthe} respondent No.4^{herein/Societyif it is involved in any} irregularities. He^{requested to dispose of the present}

SI(, J

writ petition following the order dated 10.03.2t)2O rn W.P.No.37573 of 2OIZ.

¶40

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has llot disputed the orders of this Court in W.p.No.37.>73 of 2Ol7 dated 17.tO.2OIZ.

¶41

As the impugned order dated 17.10.2O1i2 was already set aside by this Court in W.p.No.375Z3 of 2Ol7 dated LO.O3.2O2O,liberty can be granted r_o the official respondents. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is drsposed of granting liberty to the official respondents to initiate action against the respondent No.4-Society if it is involved in any irregular-itie,s. No order as to costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if aly pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGI TRAR

,TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1- The Principal Secretary, Department^{of Agriculture and Cooperation, Stateof} Telanoana. Secretariat. Hvderabad.

¶48

The C"ommissioner of iooperation and^{Registrar of Cooperativ,: Societies,} Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶49

The Aaditional Regi-strar(Housing), Office^{of the Commissionerfor} Cooperation and Registrar, Telangana^{State, Hyderabad.}

¶50

Hyd6rabad District Gbvernment Employees^{Cooperative H_ousing Society} Ltd., Mani Nagar, lvlanikonda Jagir, Near^{Q-CityFinancial District,} Nanakramguda, Hyderabad-5001 07.

¶51

One CC to-SRl SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

rc. ry:.;-'

¶53

¶54

One CC to SRI V. VENUGOPALA RAO, Advocate TOPUCI 7. OneCC to SRI CHANDRA SENA REDDY PRODDUTOR^(PARTYlN PERSON) [OPUC]

¶55

B. Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl

¶56

Two CD Copies

¶57

BN BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0111012024

ORDER

;,.
c 31
ii' 2 3 [r]t' l[21
,,)
.\
:,,
(
I

¶63

WP.No.1677 of 2018

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS €gq^ 9W

S.Gopal v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gopal v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasamalla Rajesham Vs The State of Telangana

K Gopal Krishna Rao Vs Cooperative Tribunal and 3 Others

M/s Deccan Power Products (P) Ltd., Vs The Controller of Legal Metrology

Bandla Madhu Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Konda Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana