IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 645 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/03/2009 in WP NO : 2269 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Municipal Corporation of Guntur, Rep by its Commissioner, Guntur. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Relli Parisudhya Karmika Welfare Society, (Regd.No. 194/2008) Rep by its President, Kona Viswanath, S/o. Durga Prasad, Old Guntur, Guntur. 2 Guntur Municipal Corporation, Retired Public Health Workers Children Welfare Society, (Regd.No. 672/2005), Rep by its President, Somi Sudhakar, S/o. Sankar Rao, aged 28 years, R/o.Nalla Cheruvu, 6th Lane, Opp : Workers Colony, Guntur. 3 Safai Welfare Seva Sangam, Rep by its president, (Regd.No. 237/2002), Rep by its President, Somi Kamal Kumar, S/o. Sankar Rao, aged 33 years, R/o.Nalla Cheruvu, 6th Lane, Opp : Workers Colony, Guntur. 4 Kalpanachavula Parisudhya Karmika Welfare Society, (Regd.No. 693/2005), Rep by its President, Vuyyala Nagulu, W/o. Agnesh, aged 30 years, R/o. Yetukuru Road, Guntur. 5 Bhavaji Nagar Vaddera Labour Contract Cooperative Society, Guntur, rep. by its President Vemula Brahma Naidu, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Bhavaji Nagar, Sangadigunta Post, Guntur Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.GOVIND REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 645 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order, dated 23.3.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2269 of 2009. The appellant herein is the 1st respondent and Respondents 2 to 4 are the petitioners in the above writ petition. The writ petitioners filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents therein in not considering their applications for allotment of sanitation works under the 15% reserved quota pursuant to the public notice issued by the respondent in Roc.No.322/2008/F2, dated 7.1.2009, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider their applications. The learned single Judge having considered the submission of the learned standing Counsel that in view of the urgency in the matter, for the present, they would consider the cases of all the societies, irrespective of whether they are registered under the Provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 or not, and that the question as to whether the expression “co-operative societies” used in Rule 11 (2) of the MCH Rules, 1970 means only those co-operative societies registered under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and not any other, may be considered in appropriate case, disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the respondent-Corporation, as submitted by them, shall consider the cases of all the societies, which have responded to the notification, for allotment of work on nomination bases against 15% quota, irrespective of whether they are registered under the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 or not. Now, the present appeal has been filed by the Corporation contending that as per G.O.Ms.No.581 those who are registered their societies under Societies Registration Act are eligible for 65% of the work on tender basis but not eligible under 15% reserved quota meant for the Societies registered under A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and the learned single Judge having held that a clarification is required from the Government whether the societies registered under AP Co-operative Societies Act and other Societies are the same or not, ought not have issued the direction. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that the writ petition itself has been disposed of on the submission made by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the corporation to the effect that in view of the urgency in the matter, for the present, they would consider the cases of all the societies irrespective of the fact whether they are registered or not. Therefore, it can be said that the direction has been issued in the above writ petition solely basing on the statement made by the learned standing counsel, but not on the merits of the case. In this view of the matter, We feel that if the appellant is aggrieved, it is always open to the corporation to seek the remedies that are available before the learned single Judge. Without availing the remedies that are available before the learned single Judge, the approach of the appellant before this Court, cannot be construed as a bonafide one. Hence, this writ appeal is devoid of merits and thereby, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that it is always open for the appellant to avail such remedies that are available. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice B. Chandra Kumar Date:6th May, 2009 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 645 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 6th May, 2009