IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 17080 of 2001 Between: B.JANARDHAN REDDY S/o. B.Ramireddy R/o. Patamata Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The ANDHRA PRADESH Co-operative tribunal, Yellamanchali Complex, Ring Road, Vijayawada-8. 2 Mr. Medasani Subba Rao S/o. Venkateshwar Rao Krishna Nagar, Autonagar Post, Patamata, Vijayawada. 3 Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, AMC Complex, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to OA No. 78/95 on the file of the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal Vijayawada preferred against claim petition No. 242/95-96 and same may be quash by declaring as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the orders passed in WP.95/89 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI KUMAR TOLETY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17080 of 2001 ORDER: The order impugned in this writ petition is the order of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, in O.A.No.78 of 1995 dated 13.07.2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the second respondent against the order passed by the original authority in Claim Petition No.242/95-96 dated 22.06.1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for enquiry afresh and for passing appropriate orders. While Sri T.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would seek to question the said order on merits, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation would submit that, pursuant to the order of remand, an enquiry was held afresh, an order was passed on 17.01.2004,that the petitioner had preferred an appeal, aggrieved by the said order, in O.A.No.149 of 2005 and that the said appeal was also dismissed on 23.02.2006. It is evident, therefore, that the cause in the writ petition does not survive. It is, however, open to the petitioner, if he is so aggrieved by the order said to have been passed on 23.02.2006 in the subsequent O.A.No.149 of 2005, to avail such other remedies as are available to him in law. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 2nd April, 2009 CVRK