IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14120 of 2010 Between: Mettu Ramaswamy Waddera Stone Cutters Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Madikonda Village, Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal District … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-4: GP for Cooperation Counsel for respondents 6-8: Sri Dadi Radha Krishna The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14120 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 10.06.2010 issued by respondent No.4. The President and Chairman of a 5 Member Person-in-charge Committee of Mettu Ramaswamy Waddera Stone Cutters Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Madikonda Village, Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal District (for short, “the Society”), filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.5 as person-in- charge to manage the affairs of the society for a period of six months from 22.03.2010 or till elections to the managing committee of the said society are conducted, whichever is earlier. The main ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that respondent No.4 having failed to hold elections to the society denied the duly elected office bearers of the society to manage the affairs of the society by appointing an official person as person-in-charge. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.6 to 8, who are also the members of the society, got themselves impleaded. They have raised serious allegations against the members of the society. For disposal of the writ petition, it is not necessary to refer to all those allegations. The short and limited question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the members of the society have a vested right to insist that they should continue as persons-in-charge till the elections are held. This aspect is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Elakolanu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Elakolanu and others vs. Government of A.P., and others[1]. A Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar issue, held as under: “A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly show that even assuming that he appellants herein do not stand disqualified, the same by itself cannot be a ground for their appointment as persons-in-charge. A writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued provided the writ petitioner establishes the existence of a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the respondent. Section 32(7) of the Act does not envisage that only the erstwhile members of the Cooperative Society would be appointed as persons-in-charge. Section 32(7) confers discretion upon the appropriate authority to appoint persons-in-charge. It is not the case of the appellants that such a discretion has been arbitrary exercised or is abused by the respondents herein. In such a situation, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the plea of malice-in-law, the Court shall not issue any directions which run contrary to the discretionary power conferred upon the appointing authority in terms of the aforementioned clause.” In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that the impugned order, appointing respondent No.5 as person-in- charge, cannot be termed as illegal. Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that though there was no legal impediment for respondent Nos.3 and 4 to conduct elections, obviously to deny his clients the right to manage the affairs of the society, elections are not being conducted. He further submitted that respondent No.5 is hand in glove with P.Srinivasulu Reddy, a contractor, who has gone to the extent of filing an application to implead himself in this writ petition though he has absolutely no locus standi whatsoever. He apprehended that if respondent No.5 is continued as person-in-charge, he is likely to confer favours on the said person and others chosen by him. As regards the first aspect, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation submitted that all necessary steps will be taken to conduct the elections and complete the same within a reasonable time frame. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.5 is likely to favour P.Srinivasulu Reddy and other individuals, though no specific pleadings are raised in this writ petition, having regard to the apprehensions expressed by the learned counsel, it would be appropriate for respondent No.5 not to take policy decisions involving financial commitments to the society. He is entitled to manage the day to day affairs of the society without taking such major policy decisions. For the abovementioned reasons, while declining to interfere with the impugned order, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to ensure that the elections to the managing committee of the society are held and the whole election process is completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.17758 of 2010 and WVMP.No.4033 and 2775 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.09.2010. ES [1] 2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 352 (DB)