IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Podagatla Papa Rao, S/o Nooka Raju - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 41482 of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2023
Constitution of India,1950 Constitution of India- Article 226 - APCS Act, 1964 - Section 32 (7)(a)(i) - Elections - Appointment - Challenged - Petitioner was elected as President of respondent No.5/society during the elections held, for a period of five years - After completion of period, since elections were not conducted, term was extended for a period of six months through proceedings dated - Said period was extended from time to time, through proceedings, dated - Before expiry of extended term, local MLA addressed letter, dated to Minister for Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, recommending appointing his henchmen as three man person-in-charge committee of respondent No.5 society - Challenging same petitioner along with others filed W.P.No. pending which interim direction was given to continue petitioner and two others as person-in-charge till election is conducted or until further orders - Whether petitioner has legal right to challenge G.O.Rt.No.849, dated issued by Government, appointing unofficial respondents as three man persons-in-charge committee of respondent No.5/society ? - Held, In that case, learned single Judge dealt with constitution of Trust Board - Challenge in that writ petition is that while constituting Trust Board, the Government failed to follow statutory Rules - In case on hand, as pointed out supra, neither learned counsel for petitioner nor learned Government Pleader could place rules and prescribed for appointment of PICs - Thus, in considered opinion of this Court the ratio laid down in Pagadala Pratap's case supra, does not apply to facts of the case - Contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.8 has no land within jurisdiction of society and that she is in due of certain amount to society is denied - In absence of any positive proof that 8th respondent is in due to amount, mere assertion is not sufficient - Court is of considered view that the averment made in affidavit is only a simple assertion without any material and thus it cannot be countenanced - Writ petition is dismissed
ORDER :
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is :
Petitioner was elected as President of respondent No.5/society during the elections held in 2013, for a period of five years. After completion of period, since elections were not conducted, term was extended for a period of six months through proceedings dated 10.08.2019. The said period was extended from time to time, through proceedings, dated 31.07.2020, 30.01.2021 and 31.01.2022. Before expiry of extended term, local MLA addressed letter, dated 15.07.2022 to the Minister for Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, recommending appointing his henchmen as three man person-in-charge committee of respondent No.5 society. Challenging the same petitioner along with others filed W.P.No.21690 of 2022, pending which interim direction was given to continue petitioner and two others as person-in-charge till election is conducted or until further orders. Pending W.P.No.21690 of 2022, respondent No.4, by proceedings dated 02.08.2022, extended the term of three-man person-in-charge committee of respondent No.5/society. The said writ petition along with other writ petitions was disposed of on 30.09.2022. After disposal of the writ petition, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.849, dated 05.12.2022, wherein respondent Nos.6 to 8 were appointed as three men person-in-charge of respondent No.5/society. Pursuant to said G.O. respondent No.4 issued proceedings vide Rc.No.194/2018-C, dated 09.12.2022 appointing respondent Nos.6 to 8 as three men person-in-charge committee of respondent No.5/society till 30.01.2023 or till elections are conducted or until further orders, whichever is earlier. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed.
3. Instructions were placed before this Court wherein it is stated that three man person-in-charge committee for respondent No.5/society was appointed exercising power 32 (7)(a) of APCS Act. Initially petitioner herein along with others filed W.P.No.21609 of 2022 and the same was disposed of by order, dated 30.09.2022. Pursuant to disposal of W.P.Nos.21609 and 23302 of 2022, CEOs of co-operative societies were directed to send particulars of members suitable to be nominated as three man person incharge committee. CEO of respondent No.5 society submitted the names of suitable persons to the Government through proper channel. Basing on the proposals received from District Cooperative Officer, Anakapalli, Government issued G.O.Rt.849, dated 05.12.2022 and subsequently, three man persons-in-charge committee was appointed, whose term, as per proceedings, is till 30.01.2023. Petitioner cannot have righ
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan, Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed
Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain
Pagadala Pratap and Arcod Muthu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander
State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others
State of U.P. and others Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.