Telangana High Court
WP/40309/2012 of Sunkara Koteswara Rao Vs The District Collector/Election Authority, on 31 December 2012
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40309 OF 2012 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4, in refusing to
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40309 OF 2012
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:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way ofmandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4, in refusingto receive the applications of the petitioners, dated 16.12.2012, alongwith Demand Drafts (D.Ds.), dated 21.12.2012, for membership inrespondent No.4 – Society, as illegal and arbitrary.
Respondent No.4 is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative SocietyLimited registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative SocietiesAct, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’). In this Writ Petition, the only grievance ofthe petitioners is that when they approached respondent No.4 –Society on 16.12.2012, with an intention to become members of theSociety, it refused to receive the applications.
Except the allegation of the petitioners that they have filedapplications on 16.12.2012, there is no other material to show thatrespondent No.4 – Society refused to receive the same. Even theD.Ds. enclosed to the applications are dated 21.12.2012. In that viewof the matter, the plea of the petitioners that they made applications foradmission on 16.12.2012 cannot be accepted. In any event, underSection 19 of the Act, if any application is filed, respondent No.4 inlimini cannot refuse to receive the application itself. Whether thepetitioners are entitled for membership or not, is a matter to beconsidered by the Society as per the bye-laws.
In that view of the matter, in view of the limited relief sought for, Ideem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing that if anyapplications are filed by the petitioners for grant of membership, respondent No.4 shall receive and consider the same in accordancewith the bye-laws and the provisions of the Act and the Rules madethereunder, and inform the same to the petitioners, as expeditiously aspossible.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall standclosed. No costs.
December 31, 2012MD
________________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40309 OF 2012
MD
December 31, 2012