Telangana High Court
WP/22547/2007 of Mr.Marupatla Devadass Vs The Dy. Registrar of Co.op. Societies, on 28 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 22547 of 2007 Oral order: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 in convening the meeting of no-confidence motion on 26.10.2007 without considering the objections made by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
W.P. No. 22547 of 2007
Oral order:
Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 in convening themeeting of no-confidence motion on 26.10.2007 without consideringthe objections made by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the presentwrit petition.
The petitioner is the President of Harijan Sand Labour ContractCo-operative Society Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that one ofthe four persons, namely Barla Yakaiah, Vice-President of the Society,who made representation for moving a motion of no-confidenceagainst him, is not a member of the society. There is only one memberby name Barla Yakaiah, who is aged 70 years, while Barla Yakaiah,who is party to the representation made for moving motion of no-confidence against him is aged 38 years. He submitted that though hebrought this fact to the notice of respondent No.1, yet respondent No.1without considering the said fact, issued notice dated 05.10.2007convening the meeting of no-confidence motion on 26.10.2007. Hence, he submitted that respondent No.1 be directed not to proceedwith the convening of the meeting of no-confidence motion on theappointed day.
This Court while ordering notice before admission, orderedconvening of the meeting of no-confidence on 26.10.2007 asproposed, but directed not to take further steps in pursuance of theresult of the meeting.
Respondent No.1, did not file counter. However, the learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Co-operation representing himproduced the relevant record and submitted that there are two persons by name Barla Yakaiah in the society, one who is aged 70 years, is aprimary member, and the other, who is aged 38 years and who is aparty to the representation made for moving motion of no-confidence,is the Vice-President of the society. She submitted that Barla Yakaiah,who is aged about 70 years, and who the petitioner claims is amember of the society, has himself given a letter dated 01.10.2007 tothe respondent stating that he is not the Vice-President of the society,but only a primary member, and that the other person with this nameand father’s name is the Vice-President of the society. She submittedthat except the petitioner, all other members participated in the meetingof no-confidence motion, and all voted against the petitioner. Hence,she submitted that the writ petition be dismissed.
The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 7, who gotimpleaded as party-respondents, and who participated in the meetingof no-confidence motion, filed counter and inter alia reiterated thestand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedAssistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learnedcounsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
Though the petitioner contends that one of the persons, namelyBarla Yakaiah, who made representation for moving a motion of no-confidence against him, and who is aged 38 years, is not a member ofthe society, the fact remains, it is the case of the respondents that thereare two persons by name Barla Yakaiah in the society – one is aged70 years and the other is aged 38 years, while the former is merely aprimary member, while the latter is the Vice President of the society.
Barla Yakaiah, who is aged about 70 years, and who thepetitioner claims, is the only member in the society with the said name,has himself submitted letter dated 01.10.2007 to respondent No.1stating that he not the Vice President, and that he is merely a primary
member, and that one other person with his name and father’s name isthe Vice President of the society. This letter makes it clear that BarlaYakaiah, who is party to the representation made for moving motion ofno-confidence against the petitioner, is the Vice President of thesociety. In fact, it is the case of respondent No.1, that before acting onthe representation and issuing notice convening the meeting of no-confidence motion, they have verified the signatures of the persons,and found them to be genuine. That being so, the petitioner cannotcontend that the signature of Barla Yakaiah was forged and that hewas impersonated.
Further, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he himselfhas received the notice convening the meeting of no-confidencemotion before time, and that even all other members of the Committeereceived the same before time. Hence, the petitioner cannot contendthat the notice was not served on him properly.
Be that as it may, it is the case of the respondents that themeeting of no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner washeld as scheduled, and in the said meeting, except the petitioner allthe other members participated and unanimously voted the motionagainst the petitioner, but for the stay orders granted by this Court, theyare not taking any consequential action.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition, and thesame is accordingly dismissed. The stay order granted by this Court,directing respondent No.1 not to take any action in pursuance of themeeting, is vacated. No costs.
Dated: 28[th ]December, 2007.KSR
________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.