Yerra Sri Ramulu v. Society Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
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 to issue any writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus by declaring the impugned order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.1987/2006C dated 10.9.2008 as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the APCS Act 1964 and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following :
ORDER:
Heard Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The order impugned in this writ petition is an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, dated 10-09-2008, superseding the petitioner the post of President of Bomminampadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society with effect from 12-09-2008. The said order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short – ‘the Act’). Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in APPANNA SURIBABU vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, E.G.DIST. [1] , and contend that the Managing Committee can only be superseded after consultation with the financing bank and since consultation with the financing bank for superseding a Managing Committee is mandatory, failure to do so vitiates any order of supersession.
Learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, on the other hand, would contend that Section 34 of the Act deals with supersession of the Managing Committee in its entirety and since, in the case on hand, the Registrar had superseded only the petitioner from the post of President of the Bomminampadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, and merely because the President is a member of the Society, it is not Section 34 of the Act, but Section 21-AA of the Act which applies. The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that the impugned order passed under Section 34 of the Act is erroneous and that it would suffice if this Court were to set aside the impugned order, leaving it open to the 1st respondent to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Needless to state that quashing of the impugned order would not preclude the 1st respondent from passing an order afresh accordance with law.
Since this writ petition is allowed on this short ground, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to refer to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that failure to consult the financing bank would vitiate the impugned order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 3rd December 2008 CVRK [1] 2000 (1) ALD 135
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.