A consequential order or charge memo cannot legally survive if the primary order or enquiry report upon which it is based has been set aside by a competent court.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide File N0.AGCO6- 17026/1/2019- APCOBDCCB-CCRCS dated 29.03.2023, and issuance of subsequent charge memo vide Ref Legal/2023-24 dated 15.07.2023 by the 4th respondent, is legally invalid and abuse of process as this Hon ble Court in W.P.No. 15893 of 2023 as this Hon ble Court vide orders dated 27.03.2024 allowed the said Writ Petition by setting-aside the orders in File N0.AGCO6- 17026/1/2019-APCOBDCCB-CCRCS dated 29.03.2023 the subsequent proceedings issued is become an infructuous which does not contain any legal sanctity or validity once the orders are suspended the authorities cannot issue further proceedings which is not permissible under law and the act of the authorities are highly unsustainable and highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentlyset aside the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in File N0.AGCO6-17026/1/20 19- APCOBDCCB-CCRCS dated 29.03.2023 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in respect of the proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent File N0.AGCO6-17026/1/2019- APCOBDCCB-CCRCS dated 29.03.2023 as the orders are without following the due procedure as settled principals of law pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

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 May be may be pleased to permit the petitioners to come on record in the main writ petition in WP.No.1518 of 2026 as legal heirs of the deceased first petition late Javvadi Sri Venkata Vasu Deva Suryanarayana who died on 15.01.2026 as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners , and permits them to contest the case on behalf of 1st petitioner, pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SURAGANI VIJAYA KUMAR

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide File N0 AGCO6- 17026/1/2019- APCOBDCCB-CCRCS dated 29.03.2023 and issuance of subsequent charge memo vide Ref: Legal/2023-24 date 15.07.2023 by the 4th respondent, is legally invalid and abuse of process as this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.15893 of 2023 as this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 27.03.2024 allowed the said Writ Petition by setting- aside the orders in File No.AGCO6- 17026/1/2019-APCOBDCCB- CCRCS dated 29.03.2023 the subsequent proceedings issued is become an infructuous which does not contain any legal sanctity or validity once the orders are suspended the authorities cannot issue further proceedings which is not permissible under law and the act of the authorities are highly unsustainable and highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in File No.AGCO6-17026/1/2019- APCOBDCCB- CCRCS dated 29.03.2023….”

The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Manager at Tadepalligudem Branch, certain irregularities relating to Bank Guarantees were allegedly noticed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS). Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 29.03.2023 under Section 51 of the Andh