R. Ravi Prakash S/o Sri Sriramulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Agriculture AND
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-30. R. Ravi Prakash S/o Sri Sriramulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Agriculture AND. Read the...
Judgment text
321e [ ] TELANGANA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETTTION NO: 6835 OF 2008 Between: Aged about 57 years, Occ:Govt R. Ravi Prakash S/o: Sri Sriramulu, Hills, Hyderabad' Employee F/o C-17, Film Nagar, Road No. 9 Jubilee ... PETITIONER AND (Coop'Vlll) 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Agriculture and Cooperation . - -. (CandArM), rep bv its Principal Secretary d#;ffi;;t, seir"tariii, Hyoeraoio, Ltd. , Film Nagar, Hyderabad, rep by 2 Film Nagar Cooperative Housing Society its Secretary. J The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS praying that in the Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia filed circumstances stated in the affidavit therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ' order or direction, declaring the Memo No. 9o/coop.
vlll/2001 , dt:6-12-2OO7 passed by the first Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Bye-Law No. 7 of the second Respondent Bye-Laws and set a side the same. (WPMP. NO: 8934 l. A. NO: 1 OF 2008 OF 2008) Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant g0/coop. dl 6-12-2007 passed by interim suspension of the Memo No. vlll/2001 the above WP' the first Respondent, pending disposal of (WPMP. 7 0F 20121 l. A. NO: 1OF 2012 N O:2704 petition under Secti j:;. J:;::,ti;:1il,. ;; 1r:ff t: ,T:::ffi:::;*hTt,;,1:Hff ional material papers in w P. No. 6g35 interest of justice of 200g in the !. A. NO: 20F 2008(WP MP. NO:9 344 OF 2008) Between: R. Em I"1x"H,*a:i,? i,i,in:;,Eu1h#:,1,,::",i1,, j,r,I"Jl? ;"f cc:Govt AND ... PETITIONEFYPETITIONER 1. 2 Housins Society Ltd. , ,? JTli3,:;""operative'sJ:ffi:,,? :s:l,. ':ifl,:,,i,rT[ffJl",ti,,ri,:rr.? r%? B:,,8,:"? J8in"f"yll?
orr, Firm Nasar, Hyderabad, rep by 3 The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 4 Bffi5:i:m R"p i:fl. ::"{"TxXf#? ::1ry;H",,I oy its secrerary, "'proposed 4th Respondent Petition under section 1q4 (-,. '. , - the arridav* the circumsrances ,,,"0 ,, stated . ,oii,l in ::[,o"u|,. |::,',l]ltin the High implead court may be the proposed pleased o,t, th Respondent *. "^^^"1]jrr'ron' to herein as Respondent 6835 of 2008. No. 4 in Wp No. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAyt Counsel : forthe Respondent No. : SRI S. NARASIMHA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 and 3: Gp FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI S. RAVI The Court made the foilowing: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO. 6835 OF 2OO8 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring Memo No. 90/Coop. VIII/2001 dt. 06. 12. 2007 passed by the 1" respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Bye-law No.
7 of the 2nd respondent Bye-laws and to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was allotted membership No. 302 in the 2"d respondent society in the year 1978 as per the Bye-laws of the 2nd respondent society and in view of his experience in the film field in various capacities. In the year 1982, the petitioner was allotted a plot bearing No. C-17. It is submitted that in the year 1982, the petitioner could secure a job in Doordarshan and he also became a member of the Doordarshan Cooperati're Housing Society, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent society is operating within the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, whereas the .! - W. I']. No. 6835 of 2008 Doordarshan l{ousing Society is a registered society rvith area of operation of Ranga Reddy District.
It is submitted rhat ar the time of becoming a mt:mber of the Doordarshan Cooperating Hour. ,ing Society, since the sooi:ty is operating in a different District, ttrere was no objection of any sort with regard to his membership. 3. It is subrnitted that on the alleged complaints raised by some of the members. the 2"d respondent held a meeting on 25. (. t9. 1999 and passed a resolution expelling the petitioner from the membt:rship of the 2nd respondent society on the ground that he was a member of another housing societl' with similar objects. Against the same, ttre petitioner preferred a re'rision petition before the l't respondent which was dismissed on 1:i. l 1. 2000 and against the same, he filed W. p. No. 25121 of 2000 before this courl and this court was pleased to allrw the writ Petition directing the respondents therein to consider his objections and pass a reasoned order.
It is submitted that while the l'r respondent kept the revision petition pending, the 2nd respondent society also filed a writ Petition in W,P. No. 1978 of 2007 which was disposed of,, vide order dt-05. 12. 2007, vrith a direction to the l't respondent to dispose of the revision petitior: and accordingly, the impugned Memo dt. 06. 12. 2007 I : W-P. No. 6835 of 2008 has been issued dismissing the revlsron petition of the petitioner Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner had become a member of the 2nd respondent society, he was not a member of any other society and therefore, he cannot be expelled from the membership of the 2nd respondent society subsequently. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the Bye-laws of the 2nd respondent society and submitted that Bye-law No.
7, which deals with eligibility services by the society, prescribes that a person who is already a member of any other society with the same or similar objects of the society, shall not be entitled to similar services by the society except with the permission in writing of the Registrar. He submits that there is no bar in continuation of the petitioner as a member of the 2nd respondent society. He further referred to Bye-law No. 16 to submit that no member shall be expelled under clause ( 1 ) until the resolution refened to therein is approved by the Registrar. 5. Leamed Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent society, however, submitted that since the petitioner was a member of two housing societies with similar objects, the petitioner could not continue -- W. 1 . N0. 6835 of2008 as member of the 2'd respondent society and therefbre, the order of expulsion has been passed and the revision filed by the petitioner has also been disrn issed. 6.
lIaving regard to the rival contentions and the materi. rl on record, this Courl find:; tiom the impugned order that the only reason given for expulsion of the petitioner as member of the 2nd respondent society is Bye-law No. 7. tt is noticed that the petitioner became the mt:mber of the 2nd respondent society in the year 1979 and he u,as allrtted a plot bearing No. 17ll\ a,d the petitioner has constructed a house thereon and it was subsequr:nt thereto that the petitioner was again admitted as a member in Doordarshan staff cooperative House Building Society and vide resolution No. 176 dt. 03. 09. rgg4, the petitioner got all. rtted a prot No. Al-56 which rvas later changed to A2_3g. Bye_law No. ,,, of the 2nd respondent socir:ty only prescribes that if a person is a mentber of two societies with simirar objects and who avails himself of the services of .
such other socie ty, he shall not be entitled to similar services in this society except rvith the permission in writing of the Regrstrar. The petitioner has already availed the services of both the societies in allotment of plotsi and has constructed houses thereon also. Therefore, he . ,is not entitled t. any similar services of the 2nd responde nt societv ) W. P. No. 6835 o12008 hereafter except with the permission in writing of the Registrar' Therefore, there is no cause for expelling the petitioner from the have membership ofthe 2nd respondent society' The petitioner could not House Building Doordarshan Staff Cooperative become the member of the petitioner could prohibition therein but Society if there was any such not have been expelled for subsequent events' In view of the same' the reason given for expelling the petitioner from the membership of the 2nd respondent society is not sustainable and the impugned Memo dt. 06. 12.
2007 is accordingly set aside' However' it is made clear that the . petitioner shall continue only as the member of the society but shall not be eligible for any of the services of the 2nd respondent society without the permission of the Registrar in writing' No order as to costs' 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed' this Writ Petition shall petitions, if any' in 8. Pending miscellaneous stand closed. Thirtieth Monday' the ALOKARADHE' CHIEF JUSTICE Witness THE HON'BLE Thousand and Twenty Four Day of Decernbei Two sD/-L. LAKSHMI BABU REGISTRAR ASSISTA //TRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER to'',. AND;3SSBiS3r:,1?? Eru,lIl*l oor"rnrnent of Andhra Pradesh fgriculture ;? f, 3gs'"J*;:nr1$'alls::il0"? xi'l? 0"? 'l? '"! '5';yi;ti"Ld'ilii"n'gi'' 4. Eiflt's:,"'rreanganaA'i q At**ist*li? ff ,? #{:f #*11*:*af gtlRavi, Advocate toPucl D Bl',"'6t? s E? 7 . Two CD CoPies TJ i BSK I HIGH COURT i DATED:3011212024 ll'- i> TA,( 1! 1! QA o e ORDER , 3 tl ,iAti 2025 o . l WP. No. 6835 of 2008 at -t .
t o l sP. Tctl ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ? 5 ot
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.