THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31727 of 2014 Dated: 21.10.2014 Between:
The Dharmavaram Co-operative Town Bank Ltd., Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District, Rep. by its President Ch.Lakshmi Narayana. .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Co-operation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R.N.Hemendranath Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 3: AGP for Co-operation. Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr. P.Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel for Mr. Karri Murali Krishna This Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issue of Writ of Certiorari to quash order, dated 26.09.2014, in M.A.No.36 of 2014 in O.A.No.70 of 2014 on the file of respondent No.2-Tribunal.
I have heard Mr. R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
Respondent No.4 was disqualified by the petitioner, for not attending its meetings, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Feeling aggrieved thereby, respondent No.4 has raised a dispute before respondent No.3, who by his award in ARC.No.1 of 2013, dated 26.07.2014, set aside the decision of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.70 of 2014 before respondent No.2-Tribunal. It has also filed M.A.No.36 of 2014, seeking suspension of the award of respondent No.3. By a detailed order, dated 26.09.2014, respondent No.2 has dismissed the said M.A.
After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, I am of the opinion that the order of respondent No.2, whereby it has declined to grant interim suspension, is supported by detailed reasons. Inasmuch as the appeal itself is pending before respondent No.2, I am not inclined to deal with the merits of the case. It will suffice to note that even if the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience did not lie in suspending the award of respondent No.3, for such an order would have the result of allowing the appeal itself. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2. Instead, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal in O.A.No.70 of 2014, within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.39655 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 21.10.2014 v v