IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:21147 of 2000 Between: Rajaka Jana Seva Sangham, Ghantasala ….Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ….Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 6: NONE APPEARED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.7: MR. V.S.R.ANJANEYULU The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 18.01.2000 and 19.08.2000 of respondent Nos.2 and 6 respectively. The petitioner is a society, which consists of persons belonging to Rajaka caste in Ghantasala Village. It’s plea that the tank in R.S.No.252 belongs to it was rejected by the Commissioner of Land Revenue vide his order, dated 08.08.1980. However, the petitioner was granted leasehold rights of ﬁshing in the said tank. Some of the Rajaka families, who are not admitted as members of the petitioner society, approached respondent No.2, who, having considered their grievance, passed an order on 21.11.1980 with the direction to the petitioner society to admit all the local Rajakas, whose profession is cloth washing, within 15 days on pain of cancellation of lease, in default of carrying out the said direction. Subsequently, internal disputes arose in the society and also between the petitioner and respondent No.7 societies. In 1996, the petitioner society was registered afresh under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. Thereafter, it approached respondent No.3 for grant of ﬁshing rights in terms of the Government policy. Respondent No.3 by his order, dated 03.01.2000, having considered the fresh registration of the petitioner society, which was renewed from time to time, directed respondent No.4 to allot the tank in question to the petitioner society in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.343 and 499 dated 10.04.1978 and 25.11.1999. On coming to know about the said direction, one Mr. P.Venkata Ramana and 98 others belonging to Rajaka caste of Ghantasala Village approached respondent No.2 with a representation that the petitioner society was registered afresh on 31.08.1996 by excluding many eligible Rajaka families from it and that the direction given by respondent No.3 to grant ﬁshing rights to the petitioner society without considering exclusion of eligible members of Rajaka families from the society, is causing severe hardship to all those excluded families. Respondent No.2 examined the said representation along with order, dated 21.11.1980 passed by the then District Collector, Krishna and issued impugned proceedings, dated 18.01.2000 by setting aside the direction given by respondent No.3 and directing the petitioner society to admit all the local Rajakas, whose profession is cloth washing, within 15 days and till such time, the Executive Oﬃcer, Gram Panchayat, Ghantasala was directed not to give ﬁshing rights to the petitioner society. When the petitioner society questioned the said proceedings by ﬁling Writ Petition No.1637 of 2000, the same was disposed of by this Court with the observation that the proceedings of respondent No.2 have not aﬀected the vested rights of the society and it only directed the petitioner society to give membership to the excluded members of Rajaka families in the society. This Court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner society to challenge the said proceedings under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the 1964 Act’). The petitioner society thereupon ﬁled a purported revision before respondent No.6, who, by his proceedings, dated 19.08.2000 dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner society was not registered under the provisions of the 1964 Act and, therefore, the revision was not maintainable. The petitioner society assailed these two orders. As far as the proceedings issued by respondent No.6 are concerned, I do not ﬁnd any illegality therein because even according to the petitioner society, it was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. Therefore, it could not avail the revisional remedy under the provisions of the 1964 Act. As regards the proceedings issued by respondent No.2, I do not ﬁnd any illegality therein either. Even while disposing of the earlier writ petition, this Court observed that respondent No.2 has not infringed any of the rights of the petitioner society. Respondent No.2 merely took note of the representation of 99 persons belonging to Rajaka caste, who are not admitted as members of the petitioner society and the further fact that respondent No.3 failed to consider the said fact of exclusion of eligible persons belonging to Rajaka caste. Therefore, he directed that the ﬁshing rights shall not be given to the petitioner society till it admits all the eligible members belonging to Rajaka caste, whose profession is cloth washing. I do not ﬁnd any illegality or arbitrariness in the direction given by respondent No.2 warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.26881 of 2000 and 25783 of 2001 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni