Telangana High Court
WP/24793/2004 of Smt. P.N.Jayasree Naidu Vs The Deputy Registrar on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24793 of 2004 Between: Smt. P.N.Jayasree Naidu W/o P.Laxman AP.Housing Board, R/o
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24793 of 2004
Between:
Smt. P.N.Jayasree Naidu W/o P.Laxman AP.Housing Board, R/o Hyderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Deputy Registrar Officer on Special Duty, Hyderabad.
District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction , more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Certiorari called for the record pertaining to the demand noticeEP.No.6/2004, dt. 17/12/2004 issued by the respondent herein and impugned inthe instant writ petition and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary andviolative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Art. 14& 21 of the constitution of India.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.NANDA KISHORE
Counsel for the Respondent: MR.R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
Petitioner feels aggrieved by a demand notice dated 17.12.2004 issued underRule 52 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. According to thelearned counsel for the petitioner, the demand notice is not preceded by anyadjudication.
Learned standing counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that asurcharge order under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act waspassed against the petitioner and several others long back and the demandnotice was issued in accordance with the surcharge order.
Though the demand notice is said to be for execution of the surcharge order,the particulars thereof are not mentioned. In the absence of the same, it wouldbe difficult for the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate Tribunal.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing that itshall be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent with a request tofurnish the copy of the surcharge order against her and if she presents anappeal within 15 days thereafter it shall be entertained by the appellateTribunal, as having been presented within limitation. The respondent shall nottake any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of the demandnotice for a period of three weeks from today. There shall be no order as tocosts.
-----------------------------
ksld
To
1 The Deputy Registrar Officer on Special Duty, Hyderabad. District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nampally Station Road, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
2 Two CD copies.