THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.87 of 2011 ORDER: O.O.P.No.43 of 2003 was filed by the respondents 1 to 3, and O.O.P.No.19 of 2005, by the 1st respondent and three others, in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kurnool, for various reliefs, pertaining to the management and administration of Kurnool Pattana Swarnakara Sangham, the 1st petitioner herein. The 2nd petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, figured as respondents in the OP No.19 of 2005. Through a detailed order dated 19-12-2005, the trial Court appointed two Advocate Commissioners, as Receivers. Various directions, for the purpose of the management of the Sangham, maintenance of records and conducting of elections, were issued. Over the period, the Receivers, who were appointed earlier, were replaced and at present, respondents 6 and 7 are functioning. The Receivers filed a memo, being CFR No.2697 of 2009, stating that no progress has taken place as to the directions issued by the trial Court, on account of lack of cooperation, particularly from the 2nd petitioner. The trial Court reviewed the progress of the Sangham and passed a detailed order dated 06-12-2010. While reiterating the orders passed by it, earlier, the trial Court issued certain supplementary directions. The elections were directed to be concluded by 31-03-2011. The Receivers were also conferred with the power to collect the records, to get the accounts audited, etc. The petitioners challenge the order of the trial Court. Heard Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the Receivers. It is just ununderstandable as to how the specific directions issued by the trial Court for conducting the elections, etc., on earlier occasion were not complied with. The respondents 6 and 7 have complained that the 2nd petitioner herein is not even handing over the premises of the office, and that he is creating obstructions at every stage. The trial Court took note of all the developments and passed the impugned order. The effort was to ensure that the affairs of the Sangham are conducted in a proper and conducive manner. Out of quite large number of members, it is only the 2nd petitioner, that is not satisfied with the directions issued by the trial Court. It is important to note that, rest of the respondents, who were arrayed in the O.Ps, did not feel any grievance. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.18-03-2011. KO