SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 62377

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.Madhavi Devi, J
Maddineni Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P.No. 15677 of 2024|W.P.No. 20925 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Not clearly listed]
For the Respondents: [Not clearly listed]

The authority's power to supersede a Cooperative Society's Managing Committee under Section 34 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, is independent of surcharge proceedings under Section 60, and authorities must act expeditiously upon reports generated under Section 51 of the Act.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 34, 51, 60, 61, 76(2), 21-AA(1)(b) - Cooperative societies management - Supersession of Managing Committee - Allegations of financial irregularity, improper membership enrolment, and non-compliance with statutory directions - Court mandates official respondents to expedite decision-making on representations and enquiry reports - Appellate scope in writ jurisdiction - Requirement of clean hands - Disclosure of related litigation mandatory. (Paras 12, 14, 18, 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the Court by way of two writ petitions seeking the supersession of the Managing Committee of a film cooperative society under Section 34 of the Act, alleging widespread financial mismanagement, irregular allotment of flats, and membership manipulation. Previous representations to the Registrar and other authorities yielded no conclusive action. The society resisted, citing that the petitioner was engaging in vexatious litigation by filing multiple petitions and failing to exhaust alternative remedies.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that while the petitioner had failed to disclose certain prior litigations, such non-disclosure did not preclude the need for the statutory authorities to perform their obligations. The Court directed the official respondents to finalize decisions on the representations and the enquiry reports conducted under Section 51 of the Act.

Issues: Whether the Managing Committee should be superseded due to alleged irregularities and whether the official respondents failed in their statutory duty to act upon enquiry reports.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the power to supersede a committee under Section 34 is independent of ongoing surcharge proceedings under Section 60. The authorities have a mandatory duty to consider reports under Section 51 and take action as per the law within a specified timeline.

Result: Both Writ Petitions disposed of with directions to the official respondents to finalize the pending actions within specific timeframes.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeking writ for supersession based on alleged statutory and by-law violations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondent and government submissions regarding maintainability and pending surcharge/disqualification actions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. high court's finding that supersession is independent of surcharge proceedings and issues directive for decision-making. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. second petition regarding implementation of section 51 enquiry report for management irregularities. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. argument on suppression of material facts and maintainability of successive writ petitions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. court reiterates duty of disclosure while directing authorities to act on statutory reports. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

COMMON ORDER

W.P.No.15677 of 2024

In W.P.No.15677 of 2024, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents No.2 and 3 against the Managing Committee of respondent No.4 society under Section 34 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) in spite of the petitioner’s representations dt.28.05.2024 and 01.06.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and the bye-laws of respondent No.4 society and in violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct respondents No.1 to 3 to suspend/supersede the managing committee of respondent No.4 society and to appoint an official administrator to conduct fresh elections by convening general body meeting and to scrutinise the names of the valid members in the list of the electoral college of respondent No.4 society and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.15677 of 2024 are that respondent No.4 society was established and registered under Regd.No.TBC-608 and was initially formed with 4213 members who are all involved in film industry including movie directors, producers and artists. The Government of Andhra Pradesh allotted Ac.67.16 guntas of land in favour of respondent No.4 society in the year 1994 and the allotment of flats and row houses was made by the Committee consisting of 5 members. The petitioner claims to be one of the members of the society. It is stated that the society has later admitted 584 members as on 31.03.2022, although 422 members were already on waiting list for allotment of housing units and that this led to so many irregularities in the society in the allotment of plots. It is further submitted that the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad (West), Ranga Reddy, vide Rc.No.557-2003-H, dt.17.02.2016, had directed respondent No.4 society to prepare a list of such members who surrendered and transferred their allotted flats and to remove their membership from the society as per the provisions of the bye-laws and the Act and Rules and to take necessary action and place the action taken report in the matter within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. However, respondent No.4 society failed to take necessary action. It is submitted that the petitioner and others have brought to the notice of respondents No.2 and 3 various irregularities being committed by respondents No.4 and 5, but respondents No.2 and 3 have not taken any action thereon. It is submitted that the District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District, vide Rc.No.2128/2017-H dt.15.12.2022, had directed respondent No.4 not to deviate from the original allotments made by the Five Men Committee and to cancel all irregular allotments made by the society and also not to register any housing units without getting clearance from the District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District and that the Sub-Registrar, Vattinagulapally was also requested not to register the units until the clearance of the District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District was given. It is submitted that some of the members of the society approached thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top