THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3374 of 1998 Dated:28.3.2007 Between Ponnadi Srinivasulu …..Petitioner and 1.The President, Eduru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd, Nellore and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3374 of 1998 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the orders of the 1st respondent dated 2.12.1997 surrendering the petitioner to the District Co-operative Officer as arbitrary and illegal and contrary to Section 116-C and Rule 72 (3) of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and item 12 of Special Bye-laws regarding the service conditions and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the 1st respondent-Society. The 1st respondent-Bank vide impugned letter dated 2.12.1997 passed a resolution surrendering the petitioner to the District Joint Registrar and District Cooperative Officer, Nellore. According to the petitioner, the said surrender is contrary to the Bye-laws issued by the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies and also Section 116-C and Rule 72 (3) of A.P.Co-operative Societies Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Government introduced Single Window System by merging the non-viable societies with viable societies for smooth running of the societies and to meet the demands of the members of the Society. After introduction of Single Window System, the area of the operation of the society is extended to 10 more villages and turn over of the societies is increased 10 times more than the turn over existed prior to de-cadarization. After de- cadarisation of societies, the regular employees were allotted to the de-caderised society basing on their seniority, experience, qualification etc. The allotted secretary is over burdened with the work load and not in a position to discharge the duties properly. Some of the societies have no alternative except to appoint some office staff basing on the work load of the society. In the instant case also, the petitioner was appointed by the Person-in-charge as Assistant Clerk with consent of District Cooperative Officer. While that being so, the 1st respondent sought to terminate the services of the petitioner in one way or other to appoint his relative in the place of the petitioner. The respondent brought a pressure on the members of Managing Committee and passed the resolution on 25.11.1997 surrendering the petitioner to the District Co-operative Officer alleging that the society is not having the sufficient work load. While admitting the writ petition, on 10-02- 1998 this Court granted interim stay of the operation of the impugned order. The said interim order was extended from time to time and the same is still in force. Nine years have elapsed since the writ petition was filed before this Court. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action as per law after putting the petitioner on notice, if necessary, at this length of time. _________ 28-03-2007 rkk