WP/22515/2020 of G. Bakkaiah Vs State of Telangana on 30 December 2022

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department ofCooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Secretary (Cooperation) and Central Registrar, Govt. of lndia,Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi - ['l ]10001.Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi - ['l ]10001.

3. The Commissioner of Cooperation, Govt. of Telangana, Gruha Kalpa,Exhibition Grounds Road, Hyderabad.Exhibition Grounds Road, Hyderabad.

4. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Govt. of Telangana, MithilaComplex, 3rd Floor, H. No.4-4-296l297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.Complex, 3rd Floor, H. No.4-4-296l297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.

5. The Andhra Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd, Mithila Complex, 3rdFloor, H. No.4-4-296/297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.Floor, H. No.4-4-296/297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.

6. Samad Khan S/o Yousuf Kahan, Aged About40 years Occ.House Wife R/oFlat No.202,2 Floor Gharonda Pancham Apartment Beside lndian OverseasBank Padmaraonagar Secunderbad T.S 500025.Flat No.202,2 Floor Gharonda Pancham Apartment Beside lndian OverseasBank Padmaraonagar Secunderbad T.S 500025.

7. A.Jagannath S/o Late A. Kashinath, Aged About 57 years R/o Flat No.107Sandhya Block Medha Rejoice Apartment Attapur Hyderbad. T.S 500025.Sandhya Block Medha Rejoice Apartment Attapur Hyderbad. T.S 500025.

8. Srinivasa Rao kale S/o Rama Rao, Aged About 54 years R/o D.No,6-72Veenayaka Nagar Chetaparru Road Venkatapuram Panchayat Eluru.4.P.534001.Veenayaka Nagar Chetaparru Road Venkatapuram Panchayat Eluru.4.P.534001.

(Respondents O to I lmpleaded as per C.O. dt.'|6/03/2021 ln lA,No.'ll2021lNo.'ll2021l petition under Atlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying'that ]in thecircumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue a Wrlt [of ][Mandamus ][or ][any other ][appropriate ][Writ, ][Order ][or]brders, Direction [or ][Directions ][to ][declare ][the ][action ][of ][the ][4th ][respondent ][in]proceeding to conduct elections to [the ][Board ][of ][Directors ][of ][the ][sth ][respondent]Bank under the [provisions ][of ][Multi-State Cooperative ][Societies ][Act, ][2002, ][by]issuing Election Notice dated [25.11.2020, ]as [illegal, ][arbitrary ][and]unconstitutiona I and to set aside the said Election Notice and to direct the 2ndrespondent to appornt Person-in-C ha rge to run the 5th respondent till the bye-laws are amended by permitting the employees of Union Bank of lndia tobecome members of the Sth respondentbrders, Direction [or ][Directions ][to ][declare ][the ][action ][of ][the ][4th ][respondent ][in]proceeding to conduct elections to [the ][Board ][of ][Directors ][of ][the ][sth ][respondent]Bank under the [provisions ][of ][Multi-State Cooperative ][Societies ][Act, ][2002, ][by]issuing Election Notice dated [25.11.2020, ]as [illegal, ][arbitrary ][and]unconstitutiona I and to set aside the said Election Notice and to direct the 2ndrespondent to appornt Person-in-C ha rge to run the 5th respondent till the bye-laws are amended by permitting the employees of Union Bank of lndia tobecome members of the Sth respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2020

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased togrant stay of the elections to the sth respondent Bank going to be conducted bythe 4th respondent by way of Election Notice dated 25.11.2020. pending disposalof the Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2021

Between:

Samad Khan S/o Yousuf Kahan. Aged About 40 years Occ.House Wife R/oFlat No.202,2 Floor Gharonda Pancham Apartment Beside lndian OverseasBank Padmaraonagar Secunderbad T.S 500025.Flat No.202,2 Floor Gharonda Pancham Apartment Beside lndian OverseasBank Padmaraonagar Secunderbad T.S 500025.

2A.Jagannath S/o Late A.Kashinath, Aged About 57 years R/o Flat No.107Sandhya Block Medha Rejoice Apartment Attapur Hyderbad. T.S 500025.Sandhya Block Medha Rejoice Apartment Attapur Hyderbad. T.S 500025.

3. Srinivasa Rao kale S/o Rama Rao, Aged About 54 years R/o D.No.6-72Veenayaka Nagar Chetaparru Road Venkatapuram Panchayat EluruA P.534001.Veenayaka Nagar Chetaparru Road Venkatapuram Panchayat EluruA P.534001.

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS N0.6, 7&8 in WP

AND

1G. Bakkaiah, S/o. G. Ramachandram, Aged about 57 years, Occ AssistantManager, Union Bank of lndia, Vikas Nagar Branch, R/o. Flat No,504,-Manager, Union Bank of lndia, Vikas Nagar Branch, R/o. Flat No,504,-Venkateswara Residency, Ramnagargundu, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad 500044.500044.

...RESPONDENT No.1/PETITIONER

2State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department ofCooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Jolnt Secretary (Cooperatlon) and Ccntral Reglstrar, Govt. of lndta,Department of Agrictlturri, Cooperation and Farm;rs W6lfare, Krishi Bhavan,Nei/v Delhi - 1 1OdO1Department of Agrictlturri, Cooperation and Farm;rs W6lfare, Krishi Bhavan,Nei/v Delhi - 1 1OdO1

4The Commissioner of Cooperation. Govt. of Telangana, -Gruha Kalpa,Exhibition Grounds Road, Hyderabad. Exhibition Grounds Road, Hyderabad.

The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Govt. of Telangan{ MithitaComplex, 3rd Floor, H.No.44-2961297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.Complex, 3rd Floor, H.No.44-2961297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.

6. The Andhra Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd, Rep. by its Chiefmanager & Officiating Secretary, Anusha Thota Bank Office at MithilaComplex, 3rd Floor, H. No.44-296/297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.manager & Officiating Secretary, Anusha Thota Bank Office at MithilaComplex, 3rd Floor, H. No.44-296/297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS No.1 to 5

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tovacate the interim Order daled 1111212020 in lA No ['1 ]of 2020 in WP No 22515 ot2020

IA NO: 3 OF 2021

Between:

The Andhra Bank Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd, Rep. by its Chiefmanager & Officiating Secretary, Anusha Thota Bank Office at: MithilaComplex, 3rd Floor, H.No.4-4-2961297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.manager & Officiating Secretary, Anusha Thota Bank Office at: MithilaComplex, 3rd Floor, H.No.4-4-2961297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.s in WP

AND

1G. Bakkaiah, S/o. G. Ramachandram, Aged about 57 years, Occ AssistantManager, Union Bank of lndia, Vikas Nagar Branch, R/o. Flat No.sM,-Manager, Union Bank of lndia, Vikas Nagar Branch, R/o. Flat No.sM,-Venkateswara Residency, Ramnagargundu, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad 500044500044

...RESPONDENT No.1/PETITIONER

2. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department ofCooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Joint Secretary (Cooperation) and Central Registrar, Govt, of lndia,Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi - 1'10001.Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi - 1'10001.

4. The Commissioner of Cooperation, Govt. of Telangana, Gruha Kalpa,Exhibition Grounds Road, Hyderabad.Exhibition Grounds Road, Hyderabad.

5. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Govt. of Telangana, [Mithila]Complex, 3rd Floor, H.No.4-4-296l297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.Complex, 3rd Floor, H.No.4-4-296l297, Bank Street, Hyderabad.

6. Samad Khan S/o Yousuf [Kahan, ]Aged About 40 [years ]Occ.House Wife [R/o]Flat No.2O2,2 Floor Gharonda Pancham Apartment Beside lndian OverseasBank Padmaraonagar Secunderbad T.S 600025.Flat No.2O2,2 Floor Gharonda Pancham Apartment Beside lndian OverseasBank Padmaraonagar Secunderbad T.S 600025.

7. A.Jagannath S/o Late A.Kashinath, Aged About 57 [years ]R/o FlatNo. [107]Sanclhya Block Medha Rejoice Apartment Attapur [Hyderbad. ]T.S [500025.]Sanclhya Block Medha Rejoice Apartment Attapur [Hyderbad. ]T.S [500025.]

,--- [Y]

BSrinivasa Rao kale S/o Rama Rao, Aged About 54 years R/o D.No.6-72Veenayaka Nagar Chetaparru Road Venkatapuram Panchayat Eluru.A.P.534001.Veenayaka Nagar Chetaparru Road Venkatapuram Panchayat Eluru.A.P.534001.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS No.1 to 8

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tovacate the interim order daled 1111212020 in lA No ['1 ]of 2020 in WP No 22515 of2020

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR COOPERATION

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI R.N. HEMENDRANATH REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: SRI KEETHI KIRAN KOTA

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLB SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

LA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021In/and

WRIT PETITION No.22515 of 2020

OI{DER:

The present Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ ofMandamus to declare the action of 4th respondent in proceeding toconduct elections to the Board of Directors of the 5th respondentBank under the provisions of Multi-State Cooperative SocietiesAct, 2002 (for short 'the Act') by issuing Election Noticedt.25-ll-2020 containing the detailed election schedule, as beingillegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to set aside the saidElection Notice and to direct the 2nd respondent to appoint Person-in-Charge to run the 5th respondent till the bye-laws are amendedby permitting the employees of Union Bank of India to become themembers of the 5th respondent.

2. Initially, this Court by order dt.ll-12-2020 passed thefollowing interim order:

"Heard learnecl Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Srinivasappearing for the pelilicner and learned counsel Sri'1,{emendranath Red$, apprn Trtrr the 5th respondent.

At request of learned Assistant Solicitor Generalappearingfor respondenl No.2, post on 23-12-2020.

I{at,ing regard to lhe issue involved, the Court is of theprima-facie opinion that as of now, the erstwhile employees ofAndhra Bank cannot hold a General Body meeting to conductelection to the Board of Directors of 5th respondent. Therefore,the presenl Election Nolice is not in law.

Hotuever, as stated by Sri Hemendranath Reddy, thatall the arrangements are made to hold elections on 13.12.2020,the Court is not inclined to stall the election process at thisstaqe.

l{at,ing regard to the above, the election nny go on asscheduled, but counring and declaration of result shall not beunder!aken untiI further orders. "

3. Subsequent to filing of the Writ Petition, respondent Nos.6 to 8 were irnpleaded as respondents in the Writ Petition.

4. Vacate Petitions along with their respective counter affidavitswere filed by Respondents 6 to 8 vde LA.No. 2 of 2022 andI.A.No.3 of 2O2l by the 5'h respondent seeking for vacating theinterim order dt.l l-12-2020. Counter affidavits were also f,rled onbehalfofRespondents No. 1,3 & 4.

J

CONTENTIONS OI' I'BTITIONEIT:

5. Petitioner contends that he was working with Andhra Bank, aNationalized Bank, where the employees of Andhra Bank hadestablished the 5th respondent as a Banking establishment bygetting it registered under the Act with respondent No.2; and thatin terms of Section 5 of the Act, the 2"d respondent is theauthorized person to register the Society.

6. It is further contended that the 5th respondent, though is set upas a Banking establishment, ostensibly formed as a Society for thepurpose of employees of Andhra Bank to encourage thrift, self-help and cooperation among its members. It was also acceptingdeposits from members, nominal members and public, which wererepayable on demand, thereby carrying on the general business ofbanking in terms of 'the Act'; and that the bye-laws of the 5threspondent Society specifies its objects and functions, for whichthe 5ft respondent was formed.

7. Petitioner further contends that the bye-laws of the [5'h]respondent, provides for two types of membership i.e. (1) Membersand (2) Nominal members as specihed in byeJaw Nos.6 and 7

W.P.No.225l5 of 2020TVK.J

thereof. It is ijrrther contended that in terms of bye-law No.6, onlyan employee of Andhra Bank can become a melnber of the 5hrespondent, while a nominal member as per bye-law No.7 can beany person u,ho resides within the area of operation of the 5threspondent or is gainfully engaged in any occupation in the areaand is desirous of availing services of the Bank.

8. Petitioner contends that bye-law No.8 of the bye-laws dealswith disqualification of mernbership and bye-law No.9 deals withresignation/withdrawal of members. It is further contended thatbye-law No. l0 deals with cessation of membership andcontemplates various situations whereby the membership of amember ceases to exist thereunder. One of the circumstance forcessation of membership specified under bye-law No.10, is when amember of the 5th respondent ceases to be in the service of AndhraBank.

9. Petitioner further contends that the Central Govemment inconsultation with the Reserr.'e Bank of India, under Section 9 of theBanking Cornpanies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)Act, 1970, and Section 9 of rhe Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980) hadtbrmulated a Scheme for Amalgamation of Andhra Bank andCorporation Bank with Union Bank of India called as'Amalgamation of Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank into UnionBank of India Scheme, 2020 (for Short 'Scheme of 2020'); and thatthe said Scheme would come into force from 01-04-2020.Bank of India Scheme, 2020 (for Short 'Scheme of 2020'); and thatthe said Scheme would come into force from 01-04-2020.

10. Petitioner further contends that the Govemment of India hadissued a Notification dt.04-03-2020 formulating the terms of theScheme of 2020. Under the scheme, the undertakings of AndhraBank being Transferor Bank-1 including all businesses, assets bothtangible and intangibles as defined in Clause 4 of the Notificationshall vest with the transferee Bank. It is also contended that interms of sub-clause ( l3) of Clause 4 thereof, every perrnanent andregular officer or other permanent and regular employee of theTransferor Banks and Officers and employeeson probation,serving in the employment of the Transferor Banks immediatelybefore the commencement of the Scheme of 2020, shall become anOfficer or as the case may be, employee of the Transferee [Bank.]

I 1. The Petitioner contends that on the scheme becomingeffective, all the employees of Andhra Bank ceased to be in theemployment of Transferor Bank - l, and became members of theTransferee Bank i.e., Union Bank of India and that all the memberswho secured membership with the 56 respondent, thus ceased to bemembers since their employment with Andhra Bank ceases asspecified in sub-clause (5) ofbye-law No.10.

12. Petitioner further contends that 5th respondent has amembership of 9500 members, having a board of directors whoseterm is for a period of 5 years from the date of election as per Bye-law No.33; that the term of the previously elected body expires inAugust, 2020. It is contended that on account of amalgamation ofAndhra Bank with Union Bank of India, as no employees of theAndhra Bank exist in the 5'h Respondent society, the 4ft respondentcannot undertake the action of issuing Election Notice to conductelections to the Board of Directors of 5fi respondent by fixing theschedule.

13. Petitioner further contends that by virtue of the amalgamation,the 5th respondent would remain a society without members till the t't bye-laws are amended, permitting the employees of Union Bank ofIndia to become members of the 5th respondent society; and that onnoticing the above situation, he had approached the 2nd respondenton 10-11-2020 bringing to his notice about the fact of no validmembers being there in the 5th respondent on account of cessationof their employment with Andhra Bank and sought to place therunning of the 5th respondent Society by appointing a Person-in-Charge till the bye-laws are amended.

14. Petitioner further contends that in spite of approaching the 2ndrespondent and submitting a representation to the above effect,there has been no from theresponse 2nd respondent on this aspect, while on the other hand, the4th respondent is proceeding with conducting elections to the Boardof 5th respondent by issuing the impugned Election Noticedt.25-t1,-2020.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

15. On behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 8, it is contended that theclaim of the writ petitioner that membership of the 5th respondent isdescribed in bye-law No.6 and that it is only restricted to

employees of Andhra Bank is deceptive and misleading. It iscontended that the 5ft respondent was established in the year 1951and was later converted into a Cooperative Urban Bank byobtaining licence from the Reserve Bank oflndia in the year 1986whereby the 5ft respondent is categorized as Urban CooperativeBank under Salary Eamers Category and that the 5ft respondent isunder the control of the Reserve Bank of India and is subjected toyearly inspection by the Reserve Bank oflndia.

16. It is also contended that 5ft respondent has a bankingrelationship spanning over seven decades with Andhra Bank and itmaintains large funds running into crores of rupees as securities,term deposits and also current accounts. Furthermore, AndkaBank was extending various services such as recovery of monthlythrift deposit, recovery of monthly loan instalments etc. from thesalary of the members who were working with it and remitting thesame to 56 respondent, which also included recovery of ciues owedby its members from their terminal benefits. It is also contendedthat all the above services provided by Andhra Bank wererestricted .only to its employees who were members of 5th ,/

respondent, as per bye-law No.6 and would not be applicable toothers who became members under bye-law No.7 of the Bye-Lawsofthe 5th respondent.others who became members under bye-law No.7 of the Bye-Lawsofthe 5th respondent.

17. On behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 8, it is further contended thatthe Scheme of 2020 formulated by the Govemment of India,whereby Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank were amalgamatedwith Union Bank of India, does not amount to cessation of suchamalgamated entities in all its form since the assets and liabilities,receivables and payables as specified in Clause 4(1) ofthe Schemeof 2020 continue to stand in the name of the transferor Bank viz.,Andhra Bank, without there being any further requirement ofdocumentation to be executed for vesting the same with the UnionBank oflndia, and thus, it cannot be said that Andhra Bank ceasedto exist for all practical pulposes post-amalgamation. It iscontended that the petitioner is only taking advantage of theamalgamation (of Andhra Bank under the Scheme of 2020), byfalsely claiming that the membership of all the members of the [5th]respondent ceases, thereby leaving the 5th respondent [without ][any]

members, ignoring the fact that no Society can exist without [a]member.

18. It is further contended that 5th respondent is a separate bodycorporate, independent of the existence of Andhra Bank and isregistered under the provisions of the Act. The existence orotherwise of 5th respondent would be govemed by the bye-laws ofthe society and its existence is neither depeirdent nor affected inany manner by the amalgamation of Andhra Bank under theScheme of2020.

19. It is further contended that that the interpretation of theScheme of 2020 sought to be placed by the petitioner leads toabsurdity. It is also contended that if the claim ol the petitioner isaccepted to be correct, even the petitioner ceases to a member ofthe 5e respondent and has ro locus standi to maintain the presentWrit Petition.

20. It is also contended that the provisions of Section 45(5) of theAct, while speciffing the period of elected Board to be a term offive years, permits continuation of existing Body to hold the officetill the successors are elected or nominated under the provisions of

the Act or the Rules or bye-laws and assume charge of their office,but does not contemplate placing the management of 5th respondentin the hands of a person-in-charge, as contended by petitioner.but does not contemplate placing the management of 5th respondentin the hands of a person-in-charge, as contended by petitioner.

21. The 5fr respondent while adopting the contentions advancedby respondent Nos.6 to 8, would further contend that the petitionerherein approached the 5th respondent by submitting a request forissuance of a nomination form pursuant to Election Notice dt.25-11-2020 vide letter dt.03-12-2020. It is also contended that thePetitioner having shown interest to take part in the election processby seeking a nomination form, is precluded from challenging thesaid Election Notice.

22. Tlte 5s respondent would further contend that bye-lawNo.33(5) of the 5ft respondent also contemplates continuation ofthe elected members to hold their office beyond the period of fiveyears till their successors are elected and assume office andtherefore even if no elections are held, as claimed by the petitioner,the existing body would continue to hold office. The said bye-lawis in consonance with Section 45(5) of the Act.

23. The 5th respondent would further contend that upon theamalgamation of Andhra Bank with Union Bank of India under theScheme of 2020, the transferee Bank treated the 5th respondent asits customer by requesting the 5th respondent to update its KnowYour Customer (KYC) details and to provide list of authorizedsignatories for operating the account maintained with them. Thetransferee bank also agreed to provide unintemrpted and smoothservices as hitherto provided by Andhra Bank, which goes to showthat the existence and functioning of 5th respondent is notdependent on the existence of Andhra Bank. That the 5'hrespondent, being an independent body, is govemed by its ownbye-laws, and mere amalgamation of Andhra Bank with UnionBank of India under the Scheme of 2020 does not automaticallyresult in the members of 5th respondent ceasing their membershipwith the 5th respondent.

24. On behalf of respondent Nos.l, 3 and 4 it is contended thatRule 19 of the of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Rules, 2002prescribes the procedure for conduct of elections; That the5th respondent at its meeting held on 23-05-2020 resolved to hold ')

the General Body Meeting and conduct elections as per the Act;and that the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 2l-06-2020had resolved to appoint the 4'h respondent as Retuming Officer toconduct the elections to constitute the Board of Directors of for aterm of5 years. The 4'h Respondent issued election notice by fixingthe schedule. It is further contended that since the Central Registrarvide letter dt.l4-09-2020 allowed the Multi State CooperativeBanks and Societies to conduct the elections till3l-12-2020 on account ofCovid-l9 restrictions, the elections wereconducted in a conventional way on 13-12-2020.

25. In reply to the above contentions, petitioner contends that theclauses in the byeJaws should be read as they appear on record;and that in terms of provisions of Section 123 of the Act, anAdministrator can be appointed to the 5th respondent.

26. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, leamed Senior Counsel appearingon behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader forCooperation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, SriR.N.Hemendranath, leamed Senior Counsel appearing for SriM.Pratheek Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel appearing forMr.Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned counsel appearing for respondentNos.6 to 8.

27. I have taken note of the respective contentions CONSIDERAI'ION BY THT] COT]RT

28. As evident from the Certificate of Registration issued by the2nd respondent, the 5fr respondent is registered under the Act withits own bye-laws goveming the conduct of its affairs. As per thecertificate issued by the 2nd respondent by incorporating theamendments made to the bye-laws of the 5th respondent, the5e respondent had its own place of business and registered office.

,oBye-law No.5 of the 5'h Respondent deals with objects andfunctions and one of its objects is to encourage thrift, self-help andcooperation among members. Similarly, Clause (2) thereofprovides for accepting deposits of money from the members,nominal mernbers, and public repayable on demand or otherwise,and withdrarvable by cheque, draft or otherwise, for the purposetending and [jnvestment.]

30. Bye-law No.6 deals with 'membership' and Bye-law No.6(l)states that [oany ]confirmed employee of Andhra Bank residingwithin the area of operation of the Bank shall be admitted as amember subject to the condition that he/she should be competent tocontract under Section 11 ofthe Indian Contract Act, 1872' subjectto conditions specifi ed thereunder.

31. It is important to note that bye-law No.6(l) categoricallystates that no person can claim admission as a member, as a matterof right and proceeds to delineate various conditions to be satisfiedin order to be admitted as a member. One of the condition thereincontemplates a situation wherein a person will not be admitted as amember if he has not subscribed to and fully paid for at least oneshare of the 5th respondent and his/trer application has not beenduly approved by the Board of Directors. A person also cannotclaim membership if he/she is a member of any other PrimaryCooperative Bank or Cooperative Credit Society registered underany State Cooperative Society Act or The Multi-State CooperativeSocieties Act.

l(rW.P.No.225l5 of 2020TVK.J

32. Thus, a reading of the conditions stipulated in the bye-lawNo.6 indicates that not every employee of Andhra Bankautomatically becomes a member of 5ft respondent and cannotclaim to become a member of the5'h respondent as a matter of right, since the same is subject tohis/her application being duly accepted by the Board of Directorsofthe 56 respondent. Though bye-law No.6 mentions heading "l.Members", there is no other heading specified thereunder.

33. Bye-law No.7 deals with nominal members, which specifiesadmission of nominal members, who reside within the area ofoperation of 5'h respondent or are gainfully engaged in anyoccupation in the area and desirous of availing the service of the 5threspondent. Thus, as per the bye-laws, the 5fr respondent has twocategories of members, (i) Persons admitted as members onaccount of them being employees of Andhm Bank subject toapproval by the Board of Directors of the 5s respondent and (ii)other members termed as 'nominal members' who reside in thearea of operation of 5th respondent and intending or desirous ofavailing the service of the 5th respondent.

,i./

34. Bye-law No. 10 which deals with cessation of membershipprovides seven circumstances in which a member loses hismembership with the 5th respondent, they are enumerated as under:

" 10. Cessation of Membership:

Membership will cease in the follov'ing circumstances:On deathOn deathl)

2) On being adjudged as insolvenl or legally disabled fromcontinuing as a membercontinuing as a member

3) On breach of any conditions prescrtbed under bylaws of theBankBank

4) On withdrawal of total share Capital held by him/her.

5) Ceased to be in the service of Andhra Bank

6) Expulsionfrom the Bank.

7) On resignation or withdrawal of membership having beenaccepted by the Bank. ["]accepted by the Bank. ["]

It is to be noted that the above bye law does not make anydistinction between members admitted under Bye-law No. 6 and 7.Thus, it applies equally to both the category of members mentionedherein above.

35. Further a perusal of the circumstances enumerated under Bye-law No. 10 indicates that cessation of membership would arise onaccount of the action(s) of an individual member conceming eitherhis personal affairs or that of the society. That is to say (l)prescribes cessation of membership on death of a member, (2)deals with a situation when a member is adjudged as insolvent,

(3) comes into play when there is a breach of conditionsprescribed under the bye-laws at the hands of a member, (4) iswhen a member withdraws the total share capital held byhim/her in the 5th respondent, (5) is a circumstance where [a]member ceases to be in service of Andhra Bank, whereas (6) iswhen a member is expelled from the 5th Respondent on account ofhis actions, hnally (7) is attracted when a member resigns orwithdraws his/her membership and the same is accepted by 5threspondent.

36. Thus, in each of the circumstances enumerated under bye-lawNo. 10 including clauses (5) and (6) which are slightly different innature, it is clear that the cessation of membership is on account ofindividual actions of a member and has no connection whatsoevereither with alfairs or actions of Andhra Bank.

37. Though it is sought to be contended by the petitioner that onaccount of amalgamation of Andhra Bank with Union Bank ofIndia under Scheme of 2020, the employment of a member of the5th respondent with Andhra Bank would come to an end, therebythe same would have to be construed as ceased to be in -l employment with Andhra Bank, it is to be seen that under the Scheme of 2020, employment of the existing employees of AndhraBank is not terminated from service on account of amalgamation.On the otherhand they continue to be in service without break orinterruption on terrns no less favourable than being in employmentwith Andhra Bank as specified in sub-clause (13) of Clause 4 ofthe Scheme of 2020. That apart, the Scheme of 2020 nowherementions that their employment with the transferor bank would bedeemed to have ceased.

38. Sub-clause (2) of Section 4 of Scheme of 2020 specifies thatupon commencement of the Scheme, the undertakings of theTransferor Bank shall vest or be deemed to vest or be taken over bythe transferee Bank without requiring any act, deed, consent orinstruction for transfer of the same.

39. Sub-clause (5) Clause 4 of Scheme, 2020 also specifies thatthe assets ofthe transferor Bank i.e., Andhra Bank as in the presentcase, shall vest or deemed to have been vested in the TransfereeBank without further act or deed done or being required to be doneby the Transferor Banks. It also mentions that the Transferee Bank

shall be entitled to exercise all rights and privileges attached tosuch immovable properties as the transferor Bank was entitled to.40. Further, a reading of Scheme of 2020 would also show that asper sub-clause (7) of Section 4 thereof, whatever is standing in thename of transferor Bank i.e.. Andhra Bank shall be transferred tothe transferee Bank. The above situation can be illustrated withreference to an example, to any lease that is held by the transferorbank i.e., Andhra Bank as in the present case, the transferee Bankshall be deemed to have become the lessee in respect of suchproperty and the terms of lease shall bind the transferee.

41. A conjornt reading of various sub-clauses of Clause 4 ofScheme of 2020 would show that the Scheme for amalgamationwas formulatcd without affecting the terms of employment of theemployees of the transferor Banks. The Scheme also provided thatif any employee is not agreeable to hold his office with thetransferee Bank in terms of sub-clause (13) of clause 4 of Schemeof 2020, such an employee shall be deemed to have beensuperannuated on the date immediately preceding the date ofcommencement of the Scheme and shall be entitled to all superannuation benefits from the Transferor Banks as would havebeen admissible to him but for the amalgamation under the Schemeof 2020.

42. In the above background, if clause (5) of bye-law 10 is to beconstrued, the same would stand attracted when an employee ofAndhra Bank ceases to be employee on account of hissuperannuation or leaving the job on his own volition or beingremoved from service by committing an act resulting intermination of service from the Andhra Bank and not by merelyagreeing to the transfer of his service to another Bank on accountof operation of law i.e., Scheme of 2020 as formulated by theGovemment of India, on which he has no control. The mere use ofthe word 'ceased to be in service of Andhra Bank (Emphasissupplied)', cannot be construed in a strict sense as being confinedonly to mean being in the service with Andhra Bank without takingnote of the developments taking place in the present day corporateworld which could not have been visualized when the bye-laws ofthe 5th respondent were framed.

22W.P.No.22515 of 2020TVK,J

43. The issue at hand can also be looked at from another anglewhich could not have been visualized when the 5ft respondentcame into existence. In a given situation if there was a change inthe name of Andhra Bank without any real change in itsconstitution, would such a mere change in the nomenclature resultin cessation of membership with the 56 Respondent. In answer tothe same, if the words "ceased to be in service of Andhra Bank"are constructed strictly as contended by petitioner, it would beapparent that the draftsrnen of the ByeJaws would not haveintended to give such an interpretation as it would lead to absurdityand disrupt the entire functioning of the 5th respondent. Therefore,the Petitioner's contention that the words "ceased to be in serviceof Andhra Bank" are to be construed strictly, cannot be accepted.

44. Further, it is settled position of law that if a literalinterpretation gives rise to an anomaly or absurdity, the sameshould be avoided and purposive interpretation should be giveneffect to, as held in the case of Deewan Singh and Others Vs.Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and othersl, wherein it was held that - I (2007) l0 scc 528

a-/

27. Although golden rule of interpretation, viz., literal rule shouldbe given effect to, if it is to be held that the DevasthanCommissioner appointed under Section 7 of the Act would be anagency ol the State, the same would lead to an absurdity oranomaly. It is a well-known principle of law that where literalinterpretation shall give rise to an anomaly or absurdity, thesame should bc avoided. [See Ashok Lanka v. Rishi DixitMANU/SC/0389/2005 : AIR2005SC282I and M.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0305/2005 :ArR200ssc20s3 l

45. Further, in K.Gopalakrishna Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and others2, a Division Bench of this Court held 'aconstruction should be avoided which renders the statute unfair orunjust in its operation, where the language of the statute does notcompel such a result'. The Court further held 'the fact that unjustresults follow the literal application of the language of a statutejustifies a search of the statute for further indications of legislativeintent.'

46. In the said decision, the Court further held as under:

" 12. The prepositional position deducible from the foregoing maynow be summed up thus:now be summed up thus:

(l) xxx xxxxx xxxxx

2 1980 ALT 329

(2) Il is to he presumed that the rule-making authority intendedthe law rutt to work an injustice. It is the duty of the Courts torender sut'h an interpretation of the laws as will best subserve,promote and effectuate the ends of justice. Technicalities shouldnot be permitted to override [justice. ]It is not to be presumed thatthe rule-making authority contemplated a violation of rules ofnatural [ju.stice. ]On the other hand, it should be presumed that thelaw-moking aulhorities intend to act in accordance with thethe law rutt to work an injustice. It is the duty of the Courts torender sut'h an interpretation of the laws as will best subserve,promote and effectuate the ends of justice. Technicalities shouldnot be permitted to override [justice. ]It is not to be presumed thatthe rule-making authority contemplated a violation of rules ofnatural [ju.stice. ]On the other hand, it should be presumed that thelaw-moking aulhorities intend to act in accordance with theprinciples of natural justice. An interpretation that results ininequity, injustice, absurdity and anamoly should be avoided.xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx ["]inequity, injustice, absurdity and anamoly should be avoided.xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx ["]

47. lf the above position of law as enunciated by this Court rvayback in the year 1980s kept in mind, the interpretation that issought to be placed before this Court on bye-law No.l0(5), onaccount of Scheme of 2020. in the view of this Court leads toabsurdity and anomaly, which is to be avoided.

48. Further, as noted hereinabove, none ofthe other circumstancesspecified in bye-law No.l0 have any connection with the acts of athird party like a scheme being framed by the Central Govt underwhich the employment of an individual is being transferred fromone bank to another bank. Thus, clause (5) of bye-law No. l0 isconfined only to the acts of individuals and cannot be construed to mean cessation of membership with 5th respondent on account ofamalgamationamalgamation

49. Though the byeJaw No. 10 provides for cessation ofmembership and sub-clause (5) thereof specifuing 'ceasing to be inthe seruice of Andhra Bank' as one of the circumstance, howeverthe word 'Cease' as used therein is not defined. In absence of aspecific meaning being assigned, reference has to be made to themeaning as assigned in the dictionaries. The word 'Cease' isdefined in various legal dictionaries as under -

P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law lexicon: "Cease": To putan end to; to stop doing. "To'cease,'does not, necessarily, importan act of free will Blacks Law Dictionary revised 4th Edition: Cease: To stoPi tobecome extinct; to pass away; to come to an end. MacDonald v./Etna Indemnity Co., 90 Conn. 226, 96 A. 926,927; Mar- tin v.Gray, 193 Ark.32,97 S.W. 439,441. Sus- pend or forfeit. Marks v.La Guardia" Sup., 31 N.Y.S.2d 336, 350. A cessation of activity.Huas- teca Petroleum Co. v. Cia de Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro,D.C.N.Y., 297 F.318,321; In re Simp- son,62 Cal.App. 549,217P.789,790.

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. 5th Edition: Cease:

(1) "To 'cease', does not, necessarily, import an act of free will.The East India Company has 'ceased' to employ a military l6

force because it has no longer any necessity for itsemployment" Qter Lord Chelmsford, Walsh v. Secretary forIndia, 10 H.L. Cas. 396).

(2) "Ceased" is a strictly proper word to apply to the case wherethe entire thing has "ceased to be" - e.g. as used in the [phrase]"any road which has ....ceased to be a turnpike road" in s.13,Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878 [(c.77)](Lanca.shire Justices v. Rochdale, 8 App. Cas. 494 - andespecially [judgment ]of Lord Vramwell).

Therefore, the word 'Cease' in the expression 'ceased to be inservice of Andhra Bank' as used in bye-law No.l0(5) has to beconstrued to mean stoppage in services of a person, i.e., themember of 5th Respondent who is being granted membership of the5th Respondent under Bye-Law No.6, deciding to put an end orstopping his ernployment with Andhra Bank on his own accord andcannot be taken in a sense to indicate the change in the status ofAndhra Bank, more specifically when the services of theemployees continue with the transferee Bank.

50. It is also important to note that the 5ff respondent will continueto have nominal members who do not have voting rights but wouldnot have members having voting rights, who can elect its Board toconduct its affairs, if the interyretation of the petitioner is to be accepted. Further even to amend the bye-laws as being claimed bypetitioner, it is necessary that the members having voting rightcontinue their membership, as the nominal members do not havethe right to participate in the General Body Meeting of 56respondent.

51. Further, as noted above, since the 5fr respondent has twocategories of members, the affairs of 5th respondent need to becontinued without [jeopardizing ]the interests of other members,which cannot be undertaken/performed without having a properBoard in its place. Thus, the claim of petitioner that on account ofamalgamation of Andhra Bank with Union Bank of India under theScheme of 2020, all the members of 56 respondent cease theirmembership with 5th respondent thereby making the 5th respondentas Society without members, in my considered opinion, is afarfetched proposition to be accepted.

52. The reliance placed by the leamed Senior Counsel ,appearingfor petitioner on the decision of this Court in State of A.P. andothers Vs. Jindat Strips Limited3 where the issue under .1zoft.pr nes'rl r consideratior.r was that the sale of goods that took place betweensubsidiary cornpany and respondent-company in the interregnumperiod between sanctioned date of amalgamation and factual dateof amalgamation, was only transfer of stock of one branch toanother, has no direct bearing on the issue involved in the presentWrit Petition

53. It is also to be seen that if the scheme of amalgamation doesnot get the approval of the Court, in such situation, the transactionbetween the arnalgamating Company would be treated asanindependent transaction though it took place between the sanctiondate and actual date of amalgamation.

54. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner also placedreliance on the decision of Fult Bench of Kerala High Court inMathew Phillip and others Vs. Malayalam Plantations (lndia)Ltd and othcrsa. In the said [judgment, ]the Full Bench of KeralaHigh Court has held that "the word 'amalgamation' is not definedin the Companies Act. Nevertheless, it is a word the implication ofwhich can be comprehended r.vithout much strain. It means mixing up or uniting together. The resultant position of amalgamation isnot annihilation although the identity of the amalgamated unitwould stand integrated with another. It is the organic unification oftwo entities or undertakings or the fusion of one with the other."not annihilation although the identity of the amalgamated unitwould stand integrated with another. It is the organic unification oftwo entities or undertakings or the fusion of one with the other."

55. A reading of the above indicates that upon amalgamation itcannot be said that the one loses its existence into other, on theotherhand, it connotes a meaning of mixing up or uniting togetherand thereby implying that both continue to work together under adifferent name. Therefore, the reliance placed by the leamedSenior Counsel on the behalf the Petitioner is of little assistance toadvance his case.

56. The Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Towers Ltd. Vs.G.N.C.T. of Delhis had taken a similar view observing as under:

30. The nature of the proceedings for approval of a scheme ofamalgamation under the Companies Act, 1956 are best described inajudgment ofthis Court reported at (1983) 53 Company Cases 926(Delhi) In re: Telesound India Limited in the following terms:

12. ... Amalgamation is, therefore, an absorption of onecompany into another or merger of both to form a third, whichis not a mere act of the two companies or their members but is s (2009) SCC Online Det 3959

brought about by virtue ol a statutory instrument and to thatextent has statutory genesis and character, and to that extent itis distinguishable from a mere bilateral arrangement to mergeor [join ]in a common endeavor, an undertaking or enterprise U.K. (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. New Kaiser-i-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd. [1970] 40 Comp Case 689 (SC)1...... The rights, property,as indeed the liabilities ol the transferor-company, become therights, property and liabilities of the transferee-company byvirtue of the order of vesting made by the court consequent onamalgamation. It is neither an assignment of right or property,nor an assignment of property by the company. It is thetransfer o1' rights, property and liabilities along with thecompanv itselfand it is only as a result olconfusion ofthoughtthat it could be described as an assignment by the company toanother person, which is independent and distinct from thecompan.v-. Such a notion ignores the peculiar position ofamalgamation in company law and its true legal incident. It isfor historical reasons that the device of amalgamation wasbuilt into thc company law for facilitating the merger ofcompanies, inter alia, rvith a view to help restoration of sickunits to hcalth, better, more effective and economicalmanagemcnt of the corporate sector to ensure continuedproduction, increased employment avenues and generationof revenues. Section 72A of the I.T. Act is one of theincentivcs for this kind ol absorption of one company intoanother. On amalgamation the transferor-company mergesinto the transferee- company shedding its corporate shell,but for all purposes remaining alive and thriving as part ofthe larger whole. In that sense the transferor company doesnot die cither on amalgamation or on dissolution rvithoutwinding-up under Sub- section (1) of Section 394. It is not /

rvound up because it has merged into another. Winding-upis unnecessary. lt is dissolved not because it has died, orceased to exist, but because for all practical purposes, it hasmerged into another forming part of one corporate shell.The dissolution is the death of its independent corporateshell, because a company cannot have two shells. It is,therefore, dissolved because the independent shell orcorporate name is superfluous. The company in its essencemeans its members, who compose it, the assets, propertyand rights that it had, its liabilities, its undertaking,business or other activity, It is not synonymous with theshell or name. On amalgamation and consequentialdissolution all these attributes continue to live as part of alarger entity. The only part that dies is the shell and thename. It is unlike the death of a natural person and yet in alarger and deeper sense the same. It is unlike it, because anatural person, as ordinarily understood, does not survive thedeath in any physical form. The transferor-company, however,does survive, in that there is a continuity even after dissolutionof its members, its assets, undertaking, etc...

175. So far as the submission that the question of the transfer hasceasing tkough exist upon effectuation of the scheme ofamalgamation is concemed, this submission fails to take intoconsideration the impact of the amalgamation. This Court in re:Telesound India Limited (supra) and Hotline Hol Celdings PrivateLimited and Ors. (supra) has clearly held that upon giving effect toa scheme for amalgamation, there is no winding up olthe transferorcompany. On the contrary, the effect is of absorption of onecompany into another or merger into a larger third. It has beencompared to shelling of a corporate shell by the transferor company which merges into the transferee company. For all practicalpurposcs, the transfcror company remains alive and thrive aspart of thc larger whole.part of thc larger whole.

57. On the other hand, if by amalgamation, one loses its identity,no proceedings for recoverl, of dues including the statutory duescan be initiated against the transferor company as the transferorcompany ceases to exist. Such proposition, if accepted, would leadto anomaly resulting in loss of revenue, which is not the intentionbehind permitting amalgarnation either under the Companies Actor under a policy decision of the Government like the Scheme of2020.

58. Further, it is also to be noted that when a transferor companyis amalgamated with a transferee company, the same would notwipe out or absolve its liabilities. This view has been held by theHon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax (Central) - 2 Vs. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd6 by observingas under:

32. The combined ffict, therefore, of Section 394(2) of theCompanies Act, 1956, Section 2(lA) and various other provisionsof the Income Tax Act, is that despite amalgamation, the business, 6 2022 SCC Online 407

enterprise and undertdking of the transferee or dmalgomatedcompany+ehich ceases to exist, after amalgamation, is treated as acontinuine one. and a vbet7neby wav of carrv forward of lossesbf the transorcomDa nv) de recialion, Detc-. are allowed to thelrans ereeTherefore, unlike a v,)inding up, there is no end to theenterprise, wilh the entity. The enterprise in the case ofamalgamdtion, continues...

59. If the above ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is taken intoconsideration, the mere amalgamation of Andhra Bank with UnionBank of India under Scheme of 2020 would not absolve AndhraBank from discharging any of its liabilities towards statutoryauthorities or its employees including superannuated employees.

60. Further, as per Section 18(l) ofthe General Clauses Act, atransferee becomes the successor of a transferor, when thetransferee expresses its relation to the transferor. Further Section17 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings) Act, 1970 also states that any reference to thetransferor bank in any law, or in any contract or other instrumentshall, insofar as it relates to the undertaking which has beentransferred shall be understood as a reference to the correspondingnew bank. A reading of the above provisions with Clause 4 of theScherft"of 2020 which speaks oi 'General Effect of Vesting'

makes it clear that by way of Amalgamation Union Bank of Indiabeing the transl'eree would become the Successor-ln-interest ofAndhra Bank i.e., transferor. Thelefore, the contention of thePetitioner that by virtue of amalgamation the employment of [a]member of the 5th respondent with Andhra Bank would come to anend thereby the same would have to be construed as cessation ofemployment rvith Andhra Bank cannot be accepted as there is nostoppage in service. Rather the employee would continue to be inservice with the successor Bank as per sub clause (13) and (14) ofclause4 ofthe Scheme of2020.

61. Further, on the reliance placed on the provisions of Section123 of Act by petitioner, it is to be seen that the provisions ofSection 123 of the Act can only be invoked when there is stalematein the conduct of affairs ofa Society. As in the present case, thereis no stalemate and by virtue of provisions of Section 45(5) of theAct R/w bye-law 33 of the bye-laws of 5ft respondent, the existingbody i.e., the Board of Directors can continue to hold their officetill newly elected body assumes charge oftheir office. It cannot be said that a stalemate has occurred requiring administration of 5th respondent to be placed in the hands ofan administrator

62. Since petitioner also claims to be an employee of erstwhileAndhra Bank, which got amalgamated with Union Bank of Indiaunder Scheme of 2020, even the petitioner loses his membership in5th respondent and cannot maintain the present Writ Petition, if hiscontention is accepted. Moreover, the petitioner on one hand whileexercising his right as a member by seeking issuance of nominationform to participate in the elections, cannot on the other hand claimthat the 5ft respondent has no members and the affairs need to bemanaged by appointing a person-in-charge. Such conduct of thePetitioner would show that he is adopting dual standards ofapprobate and reprobate, which is not permissible in law.

63. Thus, considering from any angle, the claim of petitioner inthe present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ ofMandamus restraining the 4th respondent from proceeding furtherin terms of Election Notice dt.25-1 l-2020 by holding that the 5threspondent does not have members to hold its elections for electingits Boaril of Directors is without any substance and is devoid of II

I

merits apart frorn lacking bona fides and the same is liable to berejected.

64. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs ofRs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the HighCourt Legal Services Committee within a period of two (02) weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

65. Consequently, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 are accordinglyordered.

66. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

MEMORANDUM [OF ][COSTS]

l.A.Nos.2 and [3 ][of ][2021]w.P.No.g3l30F [2020]PSRS, Costs Quantified [by ][Hon'ble ][Court ][(That]ttrl Petitioner [herein ][is ][directed ][to ][pay]coits oi is.S,OOO/- [(Rupees ][Five Thousand]Onlvi to [High ][Court Legal ][Servrces]Corirhittee, [HYderabad]

5 000-00

5,000-00

TOTAL

SD/.K.VENKAIAHASSISTANT REGIS'NAR////TRUE COPY//SECTIOft-6FFICER

To,

1 . The Secretary, [High ][Court ][Legal ][Services Committee, ][Hyderabad]2. 11 L.R. [CoPies]5. ih" Uitoli"selretary, [Union ][of lndia, ][Ministry ][of ][Law, ][Justice and ][Company]affairs, New [Delhi.]+ itiE Siiieiary. [Tetangana Advocates ][Association Library' ][High ][Court]Buildings, Hyderabad.

e6^'f

I

(t

\

BS

5. One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC]6. Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION, High Court for the State of TelanganaIOL'TIz. bne Cc to SRt R.N. HEMENDRANATH REDDY, Advocate [oPucl8. One CC to SRI KEETHI KIRAN KOTA, Advocate [OPUC]

9. Two CD CopiesBN

':-*d"t

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212022

ORDER

l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021!n/andWP.No.22515 of 2020

I

I$E [SiA])r-Yrs 23 Jlil?[73!+,\ \i : [_.-]

ORDERING THE lAs 2 & 3 of 2021 &DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

WITH COSTS

I