THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35533 of 2014 Dated: 21.11.2014 Between:
Sri G. Srinivasulu .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mrs. S. Nanda Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: A.G.P. for Co-operation The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to proceed with the No Confidence Motion against respondent No.5 on 21.11.2014, without taking into consideration the registration of F.I.R. No.292 of 2014 dated 18.11.2014 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kurnool, against respondent No.5 and two others, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Mrs. S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.
The petitioner averred that he is the Vice-Chairman of Kurnool District Sheep Breeders Co-operative Union – respondent No.6 herein, while respondent No.5 is its Chairman. That the petitioner along with seven other Directors gave a letter on 24.10.2014 to respondent No.3, expressing their lack of confidence in respondent No.5, with a request to convene the meeting for discussing the No Confidence Motion against respondent No.5. That on receipt of notice from respondent No.3, respondent No.5 has abducted two Directors namely Sri Kuruva Peddi Reddy and Kuruva Tamanna on 01.11.2014 and secretly hidden them at an unknown place. That on 18.11.2014, the petitioner has given a written complaint addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Kurnool, upon which F.I.R.No.292 of 2014 was registered on the same day for the offence under Section 365 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against respondent No.5 and two others. The petitioner further averred that upon registration of F.I.R., one other Director by name Gurumurthy was also abducted and that the meeting, which was scheduled to be held on 20.11.2014, was postponed to 21.11.2014. The petitioner has also averred that on 19.11.2014, he along with few other Directors met respondent No.3 and informed the abduction of three Directors by respondent No.5, with a request not to proceed with the proposed No Confidence Motion. As respondent No.3 has not responded to the alleged request of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.
A careful perusal of the averments in the affidavit referred to above would show that while two Directors were allegedly kidnapped on 01.11.2014, a complaint was given 17 days later. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the alleged kidnap. In the F.I.R., in column No.8 pertaining to reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant, it is mentioned as “searching”. The very fact that the petitioner failed to give a report to the police for as long as 17 days from the alleged date of abduction itself would give rise to a serious doubt about the bona fides of the claim of the petitioner that respondent No.5 has abducted two of the Directors. Furthermore, if the version of the petitioner on the alleged abduction of Directors is true, it would be highly unnatural that any of the family members of the abducted Directors would remain quiet without giving any complaint to the police for 17 days. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the abducted Directors had no families. Moreover, though the petitioner has pleaded that he has brought all these facts to the notice of respondent No.3 on 19.11.2014, no evidence in support thereof has been filed. The least that is expected of the petitioner is to give a detailed representation to respondent No.3 about the alleged abduction with a request to postpone the meeting. The petitioner has failed to prove that he has made any such representation to respondent No.3. In the absence of any credible evidence placed by the petitioner before this Court, to prima facie conclude that respondent No.5 has indulged in abduction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proposed meeting of No Confidence Motion.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, while making it clear that the findings rendered in this order relating to the allegation of abduction by respondent No.5 shall not come in the way of police to independently investigate the crime and they do not in any manner absolve the criminal liability if any of respondent No.5.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.44446 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st November, 2014 IBL