IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9550 of 2004 Between: S.Nageswara Rao, s/o (late) Kamaraju, Secretary Vizianagaram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vizianagaram, r/o Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 2 Vizianagaram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., rep., by its President, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the order of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.1334/2004-F(Coop) dated 09-06-2004 and direct the 2nd respondent to continue the petitioner in service as Secretary with all consequential benefits and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard both sides and at their request the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioner who is working as Secretary in the second respondent Cooperative Urban Bank, files this Writ Petition inter alia, seeking to assail the impugned orders passed by the first respondent herein dated 9.6.2004, where under, a direction was given to the second respondent to pass the orders of suspension having regard to the allegations as found from the report made under Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the order is passed as long back as on 9.6.2004, which is to be in force only for a period of three months form the date of the said report and consequently, a direction was given to the second respondent to pass orders of suspension. Though the second respondent served, none appears and there is no representation on his behalf. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is submitted that though the petitioner has not been suspended by the Board of Management challenged the Direction of the first respondent and the Board of Management has to implement the orders passed by the first respondent. Having regard to the fact that the impugned order is neither in force nor the same is being implemented by the second respondent, which virtually mean that there is no suspension order against the petitioner. In view of the same, the very Writ Petition has become not only infructuous but also premature. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail any other remedy in the event of order passed either of the respondents. ________________ B. Prakash Rao, J 9th December, 2004 ka To 1 The Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 2 The President, Vizianagaram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 3. 2 CCs to G.P. for Cooperation, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 3. Two CD Copies