High Court for State of TelanganaWP/10446/2015dismissed as infructuous

P.Ushaiah Goud W/O Gopal Goud, v. .The State Of Telangana,

2015-04-15Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.10446 of 2015 BETWEEN P.Ushaiah Goud ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Prohibition and Excise), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to directions issued by the District Collector/Election Authority, Medak District in Cr.No.Coop/107/2015 directing elections to be conducted to the Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, Marepally Village, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District.

3. This writ petition is filed by the former President of the Society alleging that the voter's list is not finalized, but the elections are scheduled to be held, which is not in compliance with Rule 22(ii) of A.P. Co-operative Society Rules, 1964.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Excise has taken instructions, which states that the District collector, Medak has notified for conducting elections to the Society, but said orders were not served on the Election Officer due to administrative reasons, because of public holidays on 03.04.2015 and 05.04.2015 and, as such, the mandatory provisions laid down in the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, is not fulfilled. The communication of the said order having been delayed on account of administrative reasons, it is stated that the elections will be conducted after duly circulating the file to the District Collector for appointment of Election Officer duly following Rule 22(ii) of the Rules and other relevant provisions and at present, the elections are not being held.

5. In view of the said instructions, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner does not any more subsist.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as unnecessary. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 15, 2015 Lmv