HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.987 OF 2014 DATED:01.7.2014 Between:
Pendem Kailasam … Appellant/Petitioner And The Cooperative Appellate Tribunal Rep. by its Secretary Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.987 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Hon’ble trial Judge on 12.6.2014 refusing to grant interim relief as prayed for.
As it appears from the record, the short fact is as follows. The appellant – writ petitioner was elected as Director of the sixth respondent – society in the elections held on 11.02.2013. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed O.P. No.5 of 2013 before the first respondent for declaring the said election of the petitioner for sixth respondent society as invalid and to disqualify the petitioner as member of the Managing Committee of the sixth respondent society on the ground that he is having more than two children which is in violation of proviso of Section 21-A(1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. The petitioner also filed a counter affidavit in the said O.P. denying the same. It is also stated that the petitioner’s wife underwent Tubectomy operation on 31.10.1994, but due to failure of the said operation she gave birth to a male child on 14.10.1996. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner engaged a counsel to present his case before the Tribunal formed under the aforesaid Act, but on account of failure of the learned counsel he could not get chance to take steps for cross-examination of the witnesses of adversary. In the aforesaid background, interim relief of suspension of operation of the order passed in the original petition, was sought for.
The learned trial Judge has taken note of the prima facie case that the writ petitioner was given opportunity of cross-examination and further taken note, that the Tribunal has not only proceeded on the basis of evidence adduced by the unofficial respondent before it, but also taken note of admission of the petitioner. The learned trial Judge gave the finding on fact in the interlocutory application and the said finding does not appear to be perverse and cannot be substituted by us. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 1.7.2014 bnr