THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37068 of 2014 Dated: 03.12.2014 Between:
Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Union Limited, Rep. by its Person (incharge)/Administrator .. Petitioner and State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.I) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. M. Karuna Sagar Counsel for respondents 1&4: Special G.P. (T.S.) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the election notice dated 01.12.2014 of respondent No.5 as illegal and invalid.
The main ground on which the petitioner has questioned the election notice is that under Section 75 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’), the division of institutions mentioned in the Tenth Schedule to the Act shall take place within a period of one year from the appointed day and that unless the division takes place, no elections can be held to those institutions.
On a close reading of Section 75 of the Act, I find the submission of the learned counsel without any merit. The purport of the said provision is that in respect of the institutions specified in the Tenth Schedule to the Act, which are located in one of the two States, the same facilities which are provided to the people of that State shall be provided to the people of the other State and such facilities shall be continued for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the two State Governments within a period of one year from the appointed day and, if no such agreement is reached within the said period, for such period as may be fixed by the order of the Central Government. Thus, this provision does not envisage the time limit for division of the institutions specified in the Tenth Schedule. Even otherwise, only six months had expired from the appointed day, assuming that the said provision provides for the maximum time limit of one year for division.
The deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has earlier filed a writ petition questioning discontinuance of the persons-in-charge committee consisting of the outgoing office bearers. As the said writ petition was dismissed, he has filed Writ Appeal No.1097 of 2014, wherein the Division Bench, while directing continuance of the appellant as person-in-charge, has given a peremptory direction to conduct and conclude the elections to the petitioner society within three months from the date of the order i.e. 01.09.2014. The respondents have issued the notification on 01.12.2014 i.e. on the last day of the period which was stipulated by the Division Bench, proposing to hold elections. Though the order of the Division Bench is not mentioned in the election notification, it can be presumed that in order to ensure implementation of the said order, the election notification is issued, evidently upon realizing that the time limit stipulated by the Division Bench was expiring. Having invited an order from the Division Bench, the person, who is representing the petitioner institution, cannot be permitted to scuttle the efficacy of the said order passed by the Division Bench. If the petitioner has any genuine problem, it is expected to move the Division Bench, which has disposed of W.A.No.1097 of 2014. On the facts of the case, any interference by this Court, at the instance of the same person who has invited the order from the Division Bench, would amount to passing an order contrary to the said order passed by the Division Bench.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.46392 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd December, 2014 IBL