Telangana High Court
WP/29040/2009 of VOLTAS EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE Vs The Authority Under Sec77 of A.P Cooperative on 31 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.29040 OF 2009 Between: Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.29040 OF 2009
Between:
Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited,TAB No.508, represented by its Secretary K. Srinivas Rao,S/o.K. Venkateshwar Rao.
..... PETITIONER
AND
The Authority Under Section 77 of Andhra Pradesh Co-operativeSocieties Act-cum-the Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation,Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad and others
....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.29040 OF 2009
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:
The matter is coming up for admission.
2. Learned Government Pleader for Co-operation takes notice onbehalf of respondents.
3. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring theaction of respondent No.1 in not disposing of the Revision Petition filedby the petitioner herein on 21.08.2008 and consequently to directrespondent No.1 to dispose of the Revision Petition expeditiously andpass such other suitable orders.
4. Several facts had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition.
5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Revision Petitionwhich is pending on the file of respondent No.1 is not being disposedof.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances, let respondent No.1 makean endeavor to dispose of the Revision Petition pending on his file,within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs.
___________________
P.S. NARAYANA, J
December 31, 2009MD