APHC0105979620 25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 30888 OF 2025 Between: 1. OBBU VENKATARATNAM, S/o Venkata Subbiah, Aged about 60 years, Resident of Chembedu Village, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative societies, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The President and Chairperson, Chillakuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Chillakuru Village and Mandal, Tirupati District. 4. Chillakuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Rep by its The Chief Executive Officer, Chillakuru Village and Mandal, Tirupati District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction 2 more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing impugned notice dated 09.10.2025 directing the petitioner to vacate the warehouse within seven days as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from warehouse comprised in Sy.No.251-7 situated at Chembedu Village, Chillakur Mandal, Tirupati District without following due process and pass such other orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the warehouse comprised in Sy.No.251-7 situated at Chembedu Village, Chillakur Mandal, Tirupati District by suspending the notice dated 09.10.2025, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such other orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated.07-11-2025 in W,P.No.30888 of 2025 including the dismiss the said writ petition and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondents: P VARA PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Writ Petition No:30888 /2025 O R DE R: 1. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned Notice dated 09.10.2025 directing the Petitioner to vacate the warehouse within a period of seven days as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Respondent No.4 Society had constructed a warehouse in Sy.No.251-7 for the benefit of local farmers to store their paddy produce. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Respondent No.4 Society, it had given a lease of the Warehouse to the Petitioner and a formal lease agreement was executed between them for a period of three years from 02.04.2024 to 2.04.2027 on annual rent of Rs. 99,000/- payable in quarterly instalments. Though the Petitioner had complied with the directions in the Agreement, a Notice dated 09.10.2025 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.4 directing him to vacate the premises. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as the lease is for a period of three years, the impugned Notice cannot be sustained. 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed their counter-affidavit, stating that the agreement is void and unenforceable as it was executed during the period of the General Election Model Code of Conduct, 2024. It is further stated that the lease is terminable and the petitioner cannot claim absolute rights over the property. Additionally, it was contended that the writ petition challenging the impugned notice is not 4 maintainable, as the matter pertains to a private contract between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 society. 5. Heard the learned respective counsel. 6. A writ can be maintained when there is violation of statute and when the action is in the realm of public law or function. In this case, the relief sought is that the eviction notice is contrary to the agreed lease period. The grievance is with regard a contractual aspect, which comes in the domain to private acts of the society and writ petitions cannot be maintained for such reliefs. A full bench of this court in Sri Konaseema Cooperative Central Bank Limited Vs. Seetharama Raju1 held that the Writ Petition cannot be maintained vis a vis the disputes of contractual nature against the Societies. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under: “ Similarly, even in the case of a society, which is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12, a writ does not lie to enforce a contractual obligation.” 7. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition seeking for enforceable of the private contract between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 cannot be maintained. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, as the Petitioner is in possession of the warehouse since April, 2024, the Respondents shall not disturb the possession of the Petitioner till the end of June, 2026, to enable the Petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 1990 SCC Online AP 32 5 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 05.05.2026 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.30888 of 2025 Dated: 05.05.2026 eha