THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
W.A.M.P. No. 2336 of 2014
And
Writ Appeal No. 1053 of 2014 [W.A.(SR) No. 108936 of 2014]
DATED:22.07.2014
W.A.M.P. No. 2336 of 2014
Between:
M/s. S.R. Educational and Rural Development Society, Prakasam District and another.
… Appellants And District Registrar of Societies, Ongole, Prakasam District and another.
….Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
W.A.M.P. No. 2336 of 2014
And
Writ Appeal No. 1053 of 2014 [W.A.(SR) No. 108936 of 2014]
Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
Learned lawyer appearing before the learned trial Judge on behalf of the 2nd respondent-writ petitioner informs us that she is no longer appearing for the writ petitioner and she has no power to represent him and says that change has been taken.
We record her statement.
Since change has been taken as submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, she is no longer required to appear in this matter.
The applicants have prayed for leave to prefer the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the leaned trial Judge dated 30.10.2013 in Writ Petition No.12616 of 2014. Learned counsel for the leave applicants says that the impugned order has been passed in the writ petition making personal allegations against the Society, which is admittedly not a party. Therefore, his clients are affected by this order.
Considering this contention, we have to examine whether the order passed by the learned trial Judge affects any right whatsoever of the petitioners-appellants.
It appears that the order sought to be appealed against was passed following another order dated 28.10.2010 in Writ Petition No.25556 of 2010. So to say, no separate order has been passed in the writ petition. Moreover, on noting the entire order, we do not find that there has been any adjudication of the allegations made by the writ petitioner against the leave applicants. The order merely directs the respondent-authority to receive the minutes of the writ petitioner-society for being placed on record.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- appellants, we feel that all the contentions raised in this matter together with all the material should be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble trial Judge, at the first instance. So far as the question, who can represent the Society in this matter is concerned, it is convenient for the learned trial Judge to look into the same.
Accordingly, we dispose of the leave application granting liberty to the appellants to approach the learned trial Judge. Consequently, the writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.
The other miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 22nd July, 2014 pnb SANJAY KUMAR, J