Telangana High Court
WP/13873/2000 of B.Peru Nayak, Vs State of A.P., Rep. by Secretary, on 31 December 2007
G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.13873 of 2000 Dated this the 31st day of December, 2007 Between: B. Peru Nayak .. Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep.by Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.13873 of 2000 ORDER:
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No.13873 of 2000
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2007
Between:
B. Peru Nayak .. Petitioner
AND
State of A.P., rep.by Secretary,Dept. of Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabadand 2 others
.. Respondents
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No.13873 of 2000
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 has been filed by the petitioner seeking adirection to the respondents to conduct elections to the secondrespondent-Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Nalgonda.
2) It is contended that the petitioner was elected as memberof the second respondent-bank on 16.08.1995. Later, he was electedto the Executive Committee of the said bank.
His tenure is five years according to the Section 31 (2) of the AndhraPradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. According to the abovesaid section, the respondents have to conduct elections to the bankbefore expiry of the term of Executive Committee i.e., on or before19.08.2000. There is no effort on the part of the respondents to holdelections. Prior to the amendment to the Act, the term of existingexecutive committee was liable to be extended till the elections areconducted. But after the amendment, there is no such extension oftime till the elections are held. Therefore, the petitioner hasapproached this Court through this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct elections.
3) The respondents did not file any counter affidavit.
It is the responsibility of the concerned parties to conduct electionsaccording to the mandate of the Act. The petitioner is justified inseeking direction to the respondents to conduct elections to the bank.
4) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondentsare directed to take steps to conduct elections to the bank as per theprovisions of the Act and the instructions issued from time to timeunless there is any direction from the concerned authorities preventingthe bank from conducting elections. No order as to costs.
__________________
Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, JDate: 31.12.2007Isn