IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT APPEAL NO : 305 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/11/2007 in WP NO : 20852 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Air Force Officer's Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Regd. No. TB,671, Vayupuri, Sainikpuri Post, Ranga Reddy District, Now Rep. by its Person-In-Charge. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad East Division, Ranga Reddy District at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Rani Narayanan, W/o. Late B.G. Narayanan, R/o. Plot No. 1233, Flat No. 2A, Ajay Priya Apartments, 8th Main Road, Annanagar West, CHENNAI. 3 Wing Comdr. Y.V. Krishna Rao (Retired), S/o. Y.S.R. Murthy, R/o. # 91, Vayupuri, SECUNDERABAD -94 4 Sri Y. Gopinath, S/o. Wg. Cmdr. Y.V. Krishna Rao (Retired), R/o. # 91, Vayupuri, Secunderabad -94. 5 V. Narayanana Reddy, S/o. Late Shiva Reddy, R/o. Flat No.9, H.No. 6-3-1-90/A/9-5 & 6, Somavaram Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao): Heard learned counsel for the parties and the main writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal at this stage. The appellant, who is respondent No.2 in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 5 herein, filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the interlocutory order passed in WVMP No.2778 of 2007 and WPMP No.27047 of 2007 in W.P.No.20852 of 2007, dated 06-11-2007, whereby the learned Single Judge while dismissing the WVMP filed by the appellant/respondent No.2, made the injunction granted earlier in WPMP No.27047 of 2007 against the appellant restraining it from causing any interference in the enjoyment and construction of house in the schedule plot bearing No.117 (new), during the pendency of the writ petition, absolute. The main ground agitated by the appellant is that since the writ petition was filed being aggrieved by the rejection of an application purportedly made under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and on the very showing of the writ petitioner, there exists an alternative effective remedy against the order impugned in the writ petition, therefore the writ petition itself is not maintainable. It is further agitated that the question of granting interim injunction does not otherwise arise since respondent No.5/writ petitioner is not a member of the society having entitled to seek any indulgence and alienation of the property in favour of an outsider is illegal and the writ petitioner is not entitled to make any construction in the schedule plot. Hence, the writ appeal. It is sought to be contended on behalf of respondent No.5/writ petitioner that having regard to the fact that registered document is existing in favour of the writ petitioner from the member of the society and as the vacate stay petition has been filed with an affidavit signed by the President of the Managing Committee, who on the date of filing of the application had no authority to represent the society in view of the appointment of the person-in-charge to manage the affairs of the society on 12-10-2007, and as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Since the writ appeal is preferred against an interlocutory order, we do not consider it appropriate to adjudicate the questions regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and we are refraining from going into the merits. The contentions now sought to be raised before us can be raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that respondent No.5/writ petitioner is holding a registered document in his favour, as has been observed by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. However, it is made clear that any construction made by respondent No.5/ writ petitioner shall obviously be subject to the ultimate orders to be passed in the writ petition. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, having regard to the urgency expressed on behalf of the appellant, we deem it appropriate that the writ petition itself be heard early. Office to post the writ petition for hearing subject to part-heard before the regular Court hearing the matters on 16-06-2008. __________________ B.Prakash Rao, J Dated 15th April, 2008 __________________ C.Y.Somayajulu,J vrn