Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 1639
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Vallabhaneni Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Maddinieni Ramesh Babu – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.43 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Pratheek Reddy
For the Respondents: Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Bharath Kumar
A technical error regarding the specific rule cited in a court's direction does not warrant setting aside a reasoned order if the overarching direction to consider representations does not cause serious prejudice to the party.
Headnote:The case involves an appeal against a common order directing the Registrar Cooperative Societies to consider representations against a resolution under the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and the Telangana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. The appellant contended that the lower court erroneously cited Rule 20 of the 1964 Rules, which they claimed was inapplicable to the facts of the case. The central issue was whether the clerical or legal error regarding the specific rule cited in the lower court's direction warranted setting aside the entire reasoned order. The court reasoned that such an error does not cause serious prejudice to the appellant, as the primary direction was for the Registrar to consider the representations and issue notice before deciding. W.A.No.43 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. an error in citing a specific provision does not invalidate a reasoned order if no serious prejudice is caused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties may correct cited provisions before the administrative authority during the decision-making process. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No.5 and learned 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.43 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
