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.1333 OF 2014 DATED:29.10.2014 Between:
Sri Baidevathamma Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited Venkatapuram Rep. by its President K. Chengalraya Reddy … Appellant And The Commissioner of Fisheries Government of A.P., Santhinagar Hyderabad and another … Respondents … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1333 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner in W.P. No.21075 of 2014 is the appellant. The challenge before the learned single Judge by the appellant was with regard to the action of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Chittoor, in proposing to conduct a Skill Test on 30.7.2014 as per the letter dated 17-07-2014 on the ground that the same was contrary to the procedure contemplated under Section 19(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) apart from being violative of byelaws 4.A and 5.A of the appellant – society and also the provisions of G.O. Ms. No.74 dt.21.10.2011.
2. It is an admitted fact that the Skill Test has already been conducted during the pendency of the writ petition and it was limited to the applicants who were residing within the area of jurisdiction of the appellant – society. However, Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant society, contends that the statutory procedure contemplated under Section 19(2-A) of the Act was not followed as 94 applications received by the Registrar were not even forwarded to the society. This averment of receipt of applications and forwarding the same was made by the Assistant Director of Fisheries in paragraph 4 of his counter, which was specifically denied by the appellant – society in paragraph 4 of its reply. However, this disputed aspect of the matter was left undecided and the learned single Judge merely left it open to the appellant - society to raise all its objections at the time of grant of membership to the persons who had undergone the Skill Test on 30-7-2014. However, the primary objection as to whether or not the procedure under Section 19(2-A) of the Act was followed upon the receipt of applications for membership has to be considered in the first instance on the basis of record. This crucial aspect was however not addressed.
3. The order of the learned single Judge is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration in terms of what we have stated hereinbefore.
4. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. Any action taken by the respondent authorities shall abide by the fresh adjudication by the learned single Judge. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 29.10.2014 bnr