Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 791
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Vallabhaneni Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Kasturi Srinivas – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.42 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Pratheek Reddy
For the Respondents: Y.Srinivasa Murthy, Uma Devi Nama, Bharath Kumar
A minor error in citing a specific rule in a court direction does not warrant setting aside a reasoned order if the party can rectify the error by providing the correct provision to the executing authority.
Headnote:The appeal concerns the direction given by a Single Judge to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to consider representations against a resolution under Section 23 of The Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and to issue notice under Rule 20 of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. The appellant contended that the reference to Rule 20 was an error and inapplicable to the facts of the case. The primary issue was whether the alleged error in citing the specific rule for notice issuance justified setting aside the reasoned order of the Single Judge. The court observed that the direction did not cause serious prejudice and that the appellant could simply bring the correct provision to the attention of the Registrar during the process. WRIT APPEAL No.42 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determination that a technical error in rule citation does not invalidate a reasoned order if no serious prejudice is caused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. granting liberty to the party to correct the legal provision before the administrative authority and disposing of the appeal. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No.5 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, we are of the view that the direction given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 30 of the impugned common order dated 19.12.2025 cannot amount to any serious prejudice to the appellant since the three writ petitions were disposed of by directing the respondent No.3/the Registrar Cooperative Societies for the State of Telangana herein to consider the representations made by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner in W.P.No.34351 of 2025 against the impugned resolution under section 23 of The Telangana Co-operative Societies Act,1964 (‘1964 Act’) and also to issue a notice under Rule 20 of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (‘1964 Rules’) before taking a decision thereunder.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No.5 submits that direction (ii) in paragraph No.30 of the impugned order contains an error regarding the applicable provision, viz., ‘ Rule 20 of the TCS Rules’. According to learned counsel, Rule 20 would not have any application to the facts of the case.
3. We do not find this ground to be sufficient for setting aside the impugned common order dated 19.12.2025 which is a reasoned order.
4. We hence give liberty to the appellant to place the correct provision, as is their contention, before the respondent No.3/Registrar. No further interference is called for.
5. W.A.No.42 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
