Telangana High Court
WP/1120/2006 of The Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Vs The Joint Registrar/The District Co-operative officer on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.1120 OF 2006 DATED: 26-12-2006 Between: The Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Ramakrishnapur, Office at Pamapur village, Kothakota Mandal represented by its President B. Rukmangada Reddy .. Petitioner and The Joint Registrar/ The District
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO.1120 OF 2006
DATED: 26-12-2006
Between:
The Primary Agricultural Co-operativeSociety, Ramakrishnapur, Office atPamapur village, Kothakota Mandalrepresented by its President
B. Rukmangada Reddy
.. Petitioner
and
The Joint Registrar/ TheDistrict Co-operative Officer, Co-operative Officer, Mahabubnagar District.
.. Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULUWrit Petition No.1120 of 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the actionof the respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings bearingRC.No.4296/2005-C dated 18-01-2006 withdrawing the earlierproceedings dated 19-12-2005 with regard to shifting of the office ofthe petitioner-society from rented building to its own building atPamapur village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
It appears, the petitioner-society’s area of operation isRamakrishnapur, Pamapur, Apparala, Natelli and Mirasipally villagesunder Kothakota Mandal. The Government has sanctioned funds forconstruction of pucca and own building for the society at Pamapurvillage and a new building was constructed. The Managing Committeeof the petitioner-society has passed a resolution for shifting of the officeof the society to the own building at Pamapur and, in fact, permissionwas also accorded by the Joint Registrar-cum-District Co-operativeOfficer through his letter dated 19-12-2005 for the same and inpursuant to that, the society has already shifted its office to the newbuilding at Pamapur. While that being so, the impugned order dated18-01-2006 has been passed by the very same authority saying thatthe permission earlier accorded to shift the office is cancelled. Exceptthis, no reasons were mentioned.
No counter is filed. However, on the basis of parawise remarks,the learned Government Pleader states that it was the General Body,which is supposed to pass resolution for shifting of the office from headquarters to another village and also amend the byelaws asrequired under the law. Instead of that the resolution was passed bythe Managing Committee and there was no amendment to thebyelaws. Therefore, the permission earlier accorded was cancelledunder the impugned proceedings dated 18-01-2006.
Heard both sides.
Now the office of the petitioner-society has already been shiftedfrom Ramakrishnapur to Pamapur and it is functioning at Pamapur. Though no reasons were furnished in the impugned order, in theparawise remarks it is stated that in view of some representation madeby some of the members of P.A.C.S. Ramakrishnapur, the permissionearlier accorded is sought to be withdrawn. The said reason couldhave been very well furnished in the impugned order itself. But,having not furnished the said reason in the impugned order for thereasons best known to the respondent, he now comes forward withsome other theory.
Be that as it may, since the office of the petitioner-society hasalready been shifted to its own building at Pamapur, which isconstructed with the funds allotted by the Government, and it isfunctioning as well at Pamapur, the question of re-shifting the office ofthe petitioner-society or cancelling such shifting does not arise at thisstage.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugnednotification is set aside subject to above observations. There shall beno order as to costs.
______________
C.V. RAMULU, J