THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.17773 OF 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not taking any steps to disqualify respondent No.5 as President of Water Users Association No.17, Mangiturthi as illegal and arbitrary. 2 . The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 was elected as President of Water Users Association No.17, Mangiturthi on 09.01.2008. The tenure of the President of the said Association is two years and the Government of Andhra Pradesh extended the duration of the Presidents of the said Association for another year from 31.12.2009. The petitioner was elected as T.C. Member of the said Association. As per the provisions of the A.P.Farmers Management Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (for short, ‘the Act’), respondent No.5 has to conduct the General Body Meeting twice in a year before commencement of Rabi and Khariff season and also constitute sub committees for smooth running of the committee, but respondent No.5 has not been complying with the same. Though the petitioner made several representations to respondent Nos.1 to 4, no action has been initiated and hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The only ground taken in this writ petition is that respondent No.5 has become disqualified, as he has not conducted the General Body Meetings, as required under the Act, which contemplates that the President has to conduct the General Body Meeting twice in a year before commencement of Rabi and Khariff season and also to constitute sub committees for smooth running of the committee. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that basing on the report from the Executive Engineer, Peddapuram, a show cause notice was served on respondent No.5 on 06.07.2009 under Section 41A(2)(vi) of the Act to show cause why he should not be removed as a President as per the Act. For the said show cause notice, respondent No.5 submitted a written explanation on 15.07.2009, but so far no action has been taken by respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since no General Body Meeting was conducted in accordance with the Act, proper decision has to be taken by respondent No.2 in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 contended that after giving an opportunity to respondent No.5, action would be taken by respondent No.2 in accordance with law on the show cause notice and the explanation given by respondent No.5. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 stated that respondent No.5 has already given his explanation and proper decision has to be taken by respondent No.2. 7. The provisions under Section 41A(2)(vi) of the Act empowers the Government or as the case may be the Commissioner or the officers designated to proceed against suo moto or representation or on application and may remove such President or Vice President or Chairman etc. The specific case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 has not conducted the periodical meetings, as required under law. Therefore, he made a representation on 17.10.2008 for removal of respondent No.5 as a President of Water Users Association, Mangiturthi. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner is one of the members of that Association. Basing on the representation, the competent authority submitted a report. Basing on the report, a show cause notice has been served on respondent No.5 for which, respondent No.5 has given his explanation. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law basing on the show cause notice and the explanation given by respondent No.5 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ​ _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 03rd November, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.17773 OF 2010 Date:03.11.2011 AMD