THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40221 of 2014
DATE: 29.12.2014
Between:
The Kavuru Yerukula Fishermen Cooperative Society and State of Andhra Pradesh and others …Petitioner …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 : AGP FOR FISHERIES (AP) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40221 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside urgent notice vide letter No.45/A/2014, dated 19.12.2014 issued by respondent No.3 whereby he has invited objections from the petitioner on the application filed by respondent No.5 for division of the petitioner society and formation of a new society.
Sri M.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned notice is illegal on the main ground that before issuing the same, respondent No.3 has not indicated that he has already formed an opinion that the division of the society is viable. He has further submitted that under Section 15-A(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), minimum of three weeks’ time is required to be given for filing objections and that respondent No.3 has granted only a week’s time and therefore, the impugned notice is in violation of Section 15-A(e) of the Act.
As regards the formation of opinion by respondent No.3, a perusal of the impugned notice shows that he has issued the same in pursuance of the direction issued to him by this Court in Writ Petition No.35691 of 2014 to consider the request of respondent No.5 for division of the petitioner society. The fact of respondent No.3 directing respondent No.4 to examine the technical feasibility or otherwise of the division of the society shows that he is proceeding with open mind instead of already coming to a conclusion that the petitioner society shall be divided. Indeed, this is very much advantageous to the petitioner society as it can file its objections and try to convince respondent No.3 that the division is not feasible. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the interests of the petitioner society.
As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notice granting only a week’s time for filing objections, I find merit therein. However, on this ground alone, I am not inclined to invalidate the impugned notice. Instead, respondent No.3 is directed to permit the petitioner to submit its objections within three weeks instead of one week as envisaged in the impugned notice.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.50434 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th DECEMBER, 2014.
kvni