Telangana High Court
WP/20303/2001 of U.THALAPATHI SEC.BAD Vs THE REG OF COOP SO HYDAND 3 ORS on 29 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.NO.20303 OF 2001 DATED 14-12-2006 BETWEEN Mr.U.Thalapathi. .. PETITIONER And The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and 4 others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.NO.20303 OF 2001DATED 14-12-2006
BETWEENMr.U.Thalapathi.
.. PETITIONER
And
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabadand 4 others.
…RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO.20303 OF 2001
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 writ of Mandamus directing the1[st] respondent to appoint a Person In-charge (PAC) to the 5[th]respondent – The Voltas Employees Cooperative House BuildingSociety Limited (hereinafter referred to as the society), consequentupon its failure to place the enquiry report dated 28.5.1998, underSection 51 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’),before the General Body within 30 days from the date of receipt of thesame and thereby disqualifying itself to hold office as per Section 21-AA (5) of the Act.
As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of thewrit petition, the petitioner is the founder member of the 5[th] respondentsociety. An enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was held into theaffairs of the society by the 4[th] respondent – The Cooperative Sub-Registrar (Field), Secunderabad and a report was submitted on28.5.1998 to the previous Managing Committee. The same was notplaced before the General Body of the society, thereby disqualifyingthe committee to hold the office under Section 21-AA(5) of the Act. Thus he prays that the official respondents be directed to appoint aperson in charge to the 5[th] respondent society.
The 4[th] respondent submitted the report on 28.5.1998 and thesame was received by the society on 27.9.1998. By that time, therewas no law for placing the report submitted by the enquiry officer underSection 51 of the Act before the General Body within 30 days. Theamended Act came into force with effect from 25.4.2001. Section 21-AA (5) of the amended Act stipulates that the enquiry report underSection 51 of the Act shall be placed before the General Body within30 days from the date of receipt of the same by the society. Therefore,the only question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether Section 21-AA (5) of the Act applies to the facts of the presentcase. However, the same need not be gone into by this court, in thiswrit petition, as the petitioner has filed WPMP No.32301 of 2006seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition which reads asunder.
“For the reasons stated in the accompanyingaffidavit, pending further orders it is prayed that thisHon’ble Court may be pleased to permit theamendment of the prayer in the W.P.20303 of 2001by adding “while declaring all the actions taken byR5 after 25.5.2001 including removal of thepetitioner from the primary membership of thesociety vide proceedings dated 19.10.2002 asillegal and unconstitutional and pass such otherorder or orders as deemed fit and proper” after thewords Act 22 of 2001 in para 15 of the affidavit filedin support of the writ petition”.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendmentsought for is only a consequential prayer and, therefore, it does notalter the nature of the petition.
I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner. The amendment sought for has nothing todo with the relief sought for in the original writ petition. In the originalwrit petition, the prayer sought for is to direct the official respondents toappoint a person-in-charge, whereas the amendment sought for is todeclare all the actions taken by R5 after 25.5.2001 including removalof the petitioner from the primary membership of the society videproceedings dated 19.10.2002 as arbitrary and illegal. Such anamendment cannot be permitted since it alters the nature of the writpetition. Nothing prevented the petitioner from filing a fresh writpetition against that order to workout his remedies, as available to him,under law.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seekspermission of the Court to avail the statutory remedies available to himunder law by raising a dispute under Section 61 of the Act.
It is always open to the petitioner to raise a dispute underSection 61 of the Act for redressal of his grievances. If any suchdispute is raised by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be entertained bythe authorities without raising any objection as to limitation, since thewrit petition was pending before this Court and dispose of the same, asexpeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date ofraising the dispute without being influenced by the observations, if any,made by this Court in this order. The authorities may also consider theissue as to whether the amendment, which came into force with effectfrom 25.4.2001 applies to the facts of the present case.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition isdismissed.
C.V.RAMULU,J
Dated 14.12.2006
Note:Furnish CC by Tuesday.(B/o) msv