JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.Amarender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Pearl Law Associates for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel representing Mr. Rajesh Kumar Herur, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.

Ms. B.Mohana Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation Department for the respondent No.4.

Mr. K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

Mr. B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.

2. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

3. In this intra court appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the application filed by the respondent No.1, namely I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.23976 of 2020, seeking permission to discharge the functions of the Andhra Pradesh Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank (hereinafter referred to as, “the Bank”) as officer in charge, has been allowed.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are the Chairman and Members of the elected Board of Directors of the Bank. The Bank is a scheduled bank incorporated under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. As per the averments, the elections were held on 20.12.2020.

5. The respondents No.2 and 3 filed the writ petition against the action of the respondent No.6, namely the Returning Officer of the Bank, in conducting the elections of the Bank. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 08.01.2021, permitted the declaration of the results, but restrained the elected Board from taking any policy decisions. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge, with the consent of the parties, by an order dated 30.10.2023, appointed a Retired General Manager, State Bank of India, as an officer for running the administration and managing the day-to-day affairs of the Bank. Thereafter, with the consent of the parties, the learned Single Judge passed another order dated 28.12.2023 by which it was clarified that the officer in charge shall run the administration and manage day-to-day affairs of the Bank and shall also take policy decisions.

6. Thereafter, an application, namely I.A.No.1 of 2024, was filed by the respondent No.1 seeking permission to discharge the functions mentioned therein. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 26.07.2024, has allowed the same. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge since 2020 and the learned Single Judge be requested to deal with the writ petition in a time bound manner.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that he has already submitted the written arguments before the learned Single Judge.

9. Both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 7 submit that they have no objection to the writ petition being heard early.

10. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible. Needless to state that the parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the writ petition and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments.

11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________

ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J

28.08.2024 vs