Ganji Suryanarayana v. Officio Registrar, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- APCS Act, 1964
Judgment
Cause title
Between: Ganji Suryanarayana, S/o. Sri Sathiah, Sri Laxminarsimha Swamy Silk, Handloom Weavers Co.op. Production and Sales Society Limited, (Registration) No. 10, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda District - 508 115. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Assistant Director of Handloom Weaver and Textiles/ Ex. Officio Registrar, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda. 2 Sri Laxminarsimha Swamy Silk, Handloom Weavers Co.op. Production and Sales Society Limited, Rep by its President Sri Pulgam Kailsam .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling records pertaining to the impugned order/notice of the respondent No. 2 dated 2-6-2008 removing the petitioner from the post of Managing of the Respondent No. 2 society and action of the respondent no. 1 in not passing any orders in the revision as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of APCS Act, 1964; while issuing a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Manager of Sri Laxminarsimha Swamy Silk Handloom Weavers Co.op. Production and Sales Society Limited, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda District in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following
ORDER:
The petitioner is functioning as a Manager of the second respondent-Handloom Weavers Cooperative Production & Sales Society Limited. A notice, dated 02.06.2008, was served upon the petitioner, which is to the effect that the Managing Committee of the Society met on 16.05.2008 and has resolved to remove the petitioner from service on the ground that he has resorted to acts of indiscipline. The petitioner was required to handover the charge on or before 05.06.2008. The petitioner preferred revision against the notice, dated
Operative part
02.06.2008, before the first respondent on 05.06.2008. He has also filed an application for stay. His grievance is that the first respondent did not pass any orders on the application for stay and submits that the second respondent is insisting on handing over the charge. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Industries. It is no doubt true that though what is served upon the petitioner is a notice, the service of the petitioner was terminated through the same and that he was not given an opportunity of being heard before it was issued. It does not refer to any departmental enquiry. Be that as it may, the petitioner had availed the statutory remedy of revision before respondent. The application filed for stay by the petitioner needs to be disposed of without any loss of time. Otherwise, the very purpose of filing it would be defeated. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass necessary orders on the application for stay, filed by the petitioner in the revision, within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.06.2008. Note: Issue cc tomorrow. (B/o) // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; APCS Act, 1964.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.