THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31166 of 2011 Date: 25.11.2011 Between: Gantla Dayakar Reddy and others. … Petitioners and Nalgonda-Ranga Reddy Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Ltd., Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31166 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; as well as Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3; and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 8. 2. In view of the short relief sought for by the learned counsel at the hearing to direct respondent No.11 viz., A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, to dispose of the interlocutory application within a time frame, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The petitioners were elected as Directors of the 1st respondent – Nalgonda-Ranga Reddy Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited. However, they were declared disqualiﬁed to hold the said posts by an order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent, namely Gutta Jithender Reddy, in the capacity as Chairman of the 1st respondent-Society, on the sole ground that they failed to attend the General Body Meeting held on 29.9.2011 as required under By- Law No.27.1 (a). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached the 11th respondent-A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by ﬁling O.P.No.98 of 2011 in terms of Section 37 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 on 10.10.2011. They also ﬁled an interlocutory application in I.A.No.323 of 2011 seeking to suspend the said order. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though considerable time has elapsed since the date of ﬁling of the said interlocutory application and inspite of closure of their arguments and also that the matter has undergone several adjournments, the said I.A. has not been disposed of by passing appropriate orders. Therefore, the petitioners have ﬁled this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.9.2011 of the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. 4. Indisputably, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by challenging the very order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioners therefore cannot invoke a parallel remedy by filing this Writ Petition. 5. In view of the same, Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, submits despite the arguments on behalf of the petitioners are over, the matter is being delayed, therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contends that it would suﬃce if the Tribunal is directed to pass orders on the interlocutory application within a time frame. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the docket sheet of the said O.P. 6. A perusal of the said docket sheet shows that notice was directed to be issued to the caveators on 10.10.2011. Accordingly respondents appeared on 14.10.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 18.10.2011. The petitioners were heard on 18.10.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 21.10.2011 for arguments of the respondents. Thereafter the matter has undergone several adjournments on 21.10.2011, 8.11.2011 and 15.11.2011 for steps indicated therein. Thus, it is seen that the matter had undergone adjournments and resting only at the stage of arguments of the respondents. 7. There appears to be serious disputes in the aﬀairs of the 1st respondent-Society, which, if allowed to persist, may aﬀect the interest of the said society. In the circumstances, it is desirable that the matter be adjudicated as early as possible. 8. It is represented that the matter is now posted for arguments of the respondents on 30.11.2011. If that be the case, it is appropriate that the matter be heard and the decision be taken expeditiously. 9. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy submit that the respondents will cooperate for hearing without seeking adjournment. 10. In view of the said submission, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 11th respondent-A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, to hear and dispose of I.A.No.323 of 2011 in O.P.No.98 of 2011 by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, on or before 10.12.2011. No order as to costs. 11. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the W.P.M.P. No.38675 of 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 25.11.2011. NOT E:- Issue C.C. by 26.11.2011. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31166 of 2011 25.11.2011 (Msr)