Y. V. Manyavasi v. The State Of Telangana And 10 Others
/ 6'
[3311 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT APPEAL 148 0F 2023 / Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1611112022 in the W.P.No.41145 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. .. ., .;...:-.
:,j ;..1..,-. -- 'Th'e,State o Tetafiffia 'l: ::.,"'l :
i:,. ) .
.'4!'.. '
".
.--;i;. ". .,..
- 5009_0.1, ,, ., :; :'-'
Cine Workers represented by its Presidentl, ' .,:- ';'. j-"
+
5. Sri Anil Kumar Vallabhaneni, S/o Sri V.Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 41 Years, Occ: Movie Artist, R/o Chitrapuri Head Office, Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Ltd., Chitrapuri Colony, Hyderabad - 500104 Sri Y. Praveen Kumar Yadav, .. .: '
6.
S/o Sri V. Srisailam Yadav, '
':
Agedabout35Years,occ:Movie;Artist;-..,.--,'.
R/o Chitrapuri Head Office, Telugir"Cine Workers Coopeiative . :. - ..:-.-\ i.+...;.i:": i;..,- X,1-:,,.;....;:-.: t,i: a j;::.j :,
7. Sri Kadambari Ki1,qq, S/o Sri K.V. Saty anaiayana " Aged,apout Sl Yrears, Occ:
Hyderabad- 500104 F{ydera,bad-- 500'104 ,,.,, ,, (., --..:.,..
I
,!V/dSli'T.Laxman, ''
Occ: Production Assistant, Workers .{-'
, R"/o Chitrapuri Head Office, Colony, / Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. S. RAM BABU :.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3: MS. G. JYOTHI KIRAN GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. RAVI CHANDRA MOHAN Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 11: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF .IUSTICE UJJAL BHTIYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE N. TUI{ARAIVIJI WRIT APPEAL No.148 of 20.23 JUDGMENTZ Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice tJjjal Bhugan) Heard Mr. S.Ram Babu, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. G.Jyothi Kiran, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondents No.1 to 3; and Mr. Kadiyala Ravi Chandra Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated i6.11 .2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.4l145 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3.
Appellant had filed the related writ petition praying for the following relief:
To issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus i) directing the officia-r respondents to appoint an official administrator by superseding the present Management )
(- , Committee ii) to expel the management committee i'e' RespondentsNo.5tollasmembersofthesociety;
iii) direct the Respondents No. 2 to conduct detailed inquiry and to finalise the eligible members of the society before conducting the elections; iv) direct the official respondents to conduct the elections within a period of 6 months from the date of suppression; v) and to pass such other orders as this Honble court deem lit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
4.
After adverting to the rival submissions made at the bry, learned Single Judge noticed that appellant had submitted a representation before respondents No.2 and 3 on 77 .O1.2022 highlighting his grievances vis-a-vis functioning and state of affairs in the Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society. Accordingly, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated I7.OI.2O22 of the appellant within a period of five weeks from tJle date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 5.
Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge had \
l 1J overlooked the statutory provisions of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, as well as the statutory enquiry report under Section 51 of the aforesaid Act. t I $ I 6.
Learned Government Pleader for cooperation has however placed before us a copy of the order dated o7.o1.2o23 passed by the District cooperative officer, Ranga Reddy District, disposing of the representation dated 17 .O1.2022 filed by the appellant.
7.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that subject matter of the writ petition and the writ appeal is also the subject matter in C.T.A.No.17 of 2021, which is pending before the Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad. B. That being the position, we are not inclined to entertain the writ appeal. If the appellant is aggrieved by the subsequent order dated O7.OI.2023, it is open to the appellant to avail his legal remedy or pursue the proceedings before the Cooperative Tribunal.
Subject to the above, writ appeal is dismissed.
A'
I Miscellaneous applications pending, if arLy, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/.cH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY //TRUE COPY"
SECTION To,
1. One CC to Sri S. Ram Babu, Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP for Gooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
3. One CC to Sri K. RaviChandra Mohan, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies CHR BSw
\ HIGH COURT :0210212023
JUDGMENT
W.A.No.148 of 2023 ISSING THE WRIT OUT COSTS 4L9 og 6tk