y V V y IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE r' PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 516 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.04.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No. 10468 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. M Nagi Reddy, S/o Sri M.P. Yella Reddy, aged about 70 years, Occ retired from the service of APIIC, r/o Villa No. 19, Skanda Manoharam, Near Yellamma Temple, Pasupula, Kurnool-518482 (AP). 2. K. Beerappa, S/o K. Beerappa, Aged about 70 years, Occ; Retired from the service of APIIC, r/o House No. 21-9-315, S. Sadlapalli, Hindupur, Anantapur Dist. - 515291 (AP) ...Appellants AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Secretariat building, Velagapudi, Amaravati.(AP) 2. The District Co-operative Officer and Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Governmentof A.P., AMC Complex, III Floor, N.T.R. District, Vijayawada (AP) 0^ 3. The Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Skylark Towers, 1st lane, Shyamalanagar, Gunter (AP). APIIC Employees House Building Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd., represented by its President, Regd. Office D.No.24-3-24, I Floor-C, Andhra Ratna Road, Behind Bavajipeta, Lutheran Church, Vijayawada- 3(AP) The Chief Executive Officer, APIIC Employees House Building Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd., Regd. Office D.No.24-3-24, I Floor-C, Andhra Ratna Road, Behind Bavajipeta, Lutheran Church, Vijayawada- 3(AP) 4. 5. ...Respondent lA 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 suspend the operation of the impugned notice dated 02.04.2025 published in Andhra Prabha News Paper, dated 03.04.2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. ^ Counsel for the Appellants: SRI. K RAGHU VEER ^ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION ^ The Court made the following order: APHC010218322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT APPEAi NO: 51fi/?n9<; 01^0 0^ PRADESH [3483] Between: M Nagi Reddy and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.K RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR COOPERATION CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 25.04.2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) The appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters preferred against the judgment and order dated I.A.No.l of 2025 in W.P.No. 10468 of 2025. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: The appellant/ petitioner filed Writ Petition seeking to declare the dated 02.04.2025 of respondent no.5 published in newspaper on 03.04.2025 to conduct election to the post of four (04) directors as illegal and for a ...RESPONDENT(S) DATE Patent has been 23.04.2025 passed in notice "^■AMo.Sie of2025 direction to respondent Co-operative Societies, to disqualified 12 directors, 12 directors. In support of the per byelaws of the no.2-The District Co-operative Officer and Registrar of constitute ad hoc board excluding the incumbent prepare eiigibie voters iist and conduct election relief sought, it is stated in the petition that for as society, a statutory obligation incumbent directors to conduct election was imposed on the for the vacant post well before the of directors would incur disqualification expiry of their term, else, the board for a period of three years. In view of the incurred disqualification and hence election same, all the board of directors for the posts of 12 directors shall who issued the impugned notice his resignation on 10.09.2023 itself and be conducted. Further, the Chief Executive, dated 02.04.2025, had tendered hence he is not competent to i body meeting. issue impugned notice for calling the general 3. An interim reiief of suspension of operation of the impugned general body meeting notice dated 02.04.2025 published in newspaper on 03.04.2025 was sought. 4. The learned single Judge upon hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, declined to stay the election for the time being, clarifying that the election, which ought to take place on 26.04.2025 shall be subject to the y{CJ<£i<RC3 '.WJi.3^0.516 of2025 final resuit of the writ petition. The saidorder was questioned in this writ appeal. 5. Heard Sri KG.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel for Sri KRaghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. 6. Sri KG.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel while reiterating the contents of the writ petition and the grounds of appeal would contend that the impugned notice having been issued by the person incompetent to issue such notice for convening general body meeting is illegal and unsustainable. Moreover, the impugned notice is unsustainable in view of the statutory provisions in Sections 21(6)(a) and 23 of the A.P.Mutually cooperative Societies Act, read with byelaw No.l8(iv)(a) and 17(c) of the Cooperative Society. The learned single Judge failed to consider the impact of the above provisions of A.P.Mutually cooperative Societies Act and byelaws of the Cooperative Society and further failed to consider that in the event the election was held the writ petition would render infructuous. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition setting aside the orders impugned and suspend the impugned notice pending disposal of the writ petition. ■W.AJ^o.SUofZOZS 4 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would contend that there is nothing perverse in the order passed by the learned single Judge, which would warrant interference of this Court in appeal proceedings. 8. In Wander Limited and another vs. Antox India Pvt.Ltd}, the Apex Court held: "The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interferingwith the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion." 9. The aforementioned settled proposition of law has been followed consistently and reiterated in the case of Purshottam Vishandas Raheja & another vs. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja and Ors} 10. This writ petition is preceded by a writ petition vide W.P.No. 11346 of 2023 filed by two individuals claiming to be members of APIIC Employees \ (1990) Supp.SCC 727 1(2011) 6 see 73 ‘.WAMo.Sie of2025 House Building Mutually Aided Co-op.Society Limited seeking declaration that seven (07) members of the Society incurred disqualification under Section 21(6) of the A.P.Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995, read with byelaw No.l8(iv) of the Society for their failure to conduct elections within time. A consequential direction to respondent no.2 to take action for appointment of ad hoc board for the society for conducting election for posts of twelve (12) Directors has also been sought. 11. In the said writ petition, an interim relief to restrain the respondents nos. 1 to 10 from holding any meeting except a meeting under section 23(3) of the Act for appointment of ad hoc board, pending disposal of the writ petition was prayed. 12. A learned single Judge vide orders dated 25.07.2024 directed the petitioners as well as respondent nos.7,8 and 10 therein to approach the concerned officer and to make representation and furnish the details of the society and upon such representation, the concerned officer/respondent no.3 therein shall make an endeavour to conduct elections as per the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 r/w. byelaw No.l8(iv) of the Society as expeditiously as possible not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also ■.W^Mo.Sie of2025 to consider whether the present directors are eligible to participate in the elections. 13. 13. The contents of the writ affidavit would show that the writ petitioners in W.P.No.11346 of 2023 filed petition seeking to amend the above interim orders to the effect that respondent nos.4 to 10 may be granted liberty to approach the concerned office instead of confining the said liberty to respondent nos.7,8 and 10 only. The result of the said petition and as to whether parties to the said writ petition followed the direction given by the learned single Judge in the said writ petition and if so what was the decision taken by the concerned authority on the eligibility of respondent nos.4 to 10 therein is conspicuously absent in the pleadings of the present writ affidavit. 14. Except the byelaws no material whatsoever was placed on record by writ petitioners in support of their contentions regarding incurring disqualification by the directors. In the absence of any material, the learned single Judge would not have granted stay of the election. Therefore, the learned single Judge had reached the conclusion which is reasonably possible on the material available on record. There is neither perversity arbitrariness nor capriciousness in the orders passed by the learned single Judge in showing disinclination to grant stay of election, while exercising nor JfCJ ^ ‘RCJ V.V^Mo.516 of2025 7 discretion, for this Court to interfere with the orders impugned in this writ appeal. The writ appeal being meritless is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order 15. as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// If. SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. K Raghu Veer Advocate [OPUC] 2. .Two GCs to ,G,P for Cooperation, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies GSC N ' HIGH COURT DATE0:25/04/2025 ORDER WA.No.516 of 2025 I ^ MAY 2025 ^ ‘ Current Section ^ 5£espATCH^^ DISWIISSiNG OF THE WA WITHOUT COSTS