Umesh B Seth, v. The Commissioner,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.33621 OF 2012 DATED:23-7-2015 Between:

Umesh B. Seth ... Petitioner And The Commissioner Department of Cooperative Societies Hyderabad and others ... Respondents ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: None appeared COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 and 2: A.G.P. for Cooperation COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.3 and 4: Mr. Anand Kumar Kapoor, for M/s. Lawyers & Solicitors

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the Society Member to appoint a Government Officer to run the Society viz. Saurashtra Jain Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society Limited bearing Regn.No.AMC/HYD/(U)MACS 2004 (84) Credit as illegal, arbitrary and against the canons of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to appoint a Government

Officer to run the affairs of the society with the staff, including disbursement of loans, operating bank account paying salaries to the staff, recovery of loans and subscription amounts from the members of the society viz., Saurastra Jain Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society Limited as per the Bye-Laws of the Society till the disposal of various cases and declaration of legal board."

At the hearing there is no representation for the petitioner. Mr. Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel, representing respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that W.P. No.10745 of 2012 referred to by the petitioner in this writ petition itself was disposed of by this Court as infructuous, after taking note of the fact that subsequent to the filing of the said writ petition the petitioners have filed O.P. No.18 of 2012 before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, questioning the election of the contesting respondents. As the present writ petition is a part of series of legal litigation launched by the petitioner pertaining to the management of respondent No.3 society and as the elected body is at the helm of the affairs, the question of directing appointment of Government Officer to run the society does not arise. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.42759 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23-7-2015 bnr