High Court for State of TelanganaWP/28549/2012dismissed as infructuous

Mr. Mangati Gopal Reddy, v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,

2015-06-02C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28549 OF 2012 DATED:02-06-2015 Between:

Mangati Gopal Reddy ... Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Agriculture & Cooperation Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others ... Respondents ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. T. Lakshminarayana COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NOs.1 to 4: Government Pleader for Cooperation (AP) COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.5 : Mr. B. Srinarayana for for Mr. M. Ravindranath Reddy

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: "...to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in appointing the Person or Persons-In-Charge to the 5th respondent bank and conducting the elections to the Managing Committee/Board of Directors of the 5th respondent bank, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the Person or Persons-In-Charge and to conduct the elections to the Managing Committee/Board of Directors to the 5th respondent bank and consequently

direct the 2nd respondent to initiate further action pursuant to the enquiry report dated 28.06.2008 held under Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964." At the hearing, Mr. B. Srinarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that in the year 2013 itself fresh elections were held to respondent No.5 and that the new Managing Committee, which was constituted in pursuance of the said election, has been functioning. This submission is not controverted by Mr. T. Lamshminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the above submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.5, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. Nos.36419 and 46473 of 2012 and W.P.M.P. Nos.2212 and 2495 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2-6-2015 bnr