IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14496 of 2000 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } ORAL ORDER: The order of the ﬁrst respondent superseding the managing committee of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, and in appointing the third respondent as a person-in-charge, on the ground that the petitioner committee had appointed an attender contrary to the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Society, is the order impugned in this writ petition. Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would point out that, while the term of the committee ended in 2000, the Government had issued memo dated 07-07-2000 extending the term of the committee for a period of six months. It is not known whether there is any extension thereafter. Since more than eight years have elapsed and it is informed by Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the term of the managing committee has long since expired, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to now go into the question regarding the validity of the order passed by the ﬁrst respondent superseding the committee. It would suﬃce if this Court were to note that, pursuant to its interim orders, the committee continued till the expiry of its term. One additional fact which may also disentitle the petitioner to the relief sought for in the writ petition is that the writ petition has been dismissed for default as against the third respondent, vide Court order dated 22-09-2004. As noted above, it is the third respondent who was appointed as the person incharge on the petitioner managing committee being superseded. Looked at from any angle, the writ petition has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ 28th August, 2008 SKM