IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 10426 of 2001 Between: Maganti Bosu, S/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Cheruvu, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Primary Agricultural Coop. Society Cheruvu, Rep.by its President, Cheruvu, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. 2 The General Manager, Krishna District Coop. Central Bank, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The Cheruvu Gram Panchayat, Rep.by its Sarpanch, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna Dist. 4 The Chief Project Officer, I.C.D.P., New LIC Buildings, Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam. .....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 call for the records and issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent to construct the proposed go down for the society at Cheruvu Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District without obtaining the statutory permission from the 3rd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to construct the godown for the society at Cheruvu Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District after obtaining the statutory permission from the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is a member of the first respondent/society. Questioning the action of the first respondent/society, in particular, its Chairman and as well as General Manager, in trying to construct the proposed godown without obtaining statutory permission from the third respondent, the present writ petition is filed. The primary contention of the petitioner, in the writ petition, is that the action of the first respondent society, in collusion with the second respondent bank, would result in unnecessary wastage and misuse of funds of the society. Notice before admission was ordered on 23.5.2001. The writ petition was admitted on 1.3.2002. However, no interim relief was granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel is not able to confirm as to whether the godowns have been constructed or not. However, the fact remains that almost 8 years have gone and the term of the office bearers and members of the first respondent/society, who are parties to this litigation, also must have been over long back. The cause in the writ petition became too stale and does not survive. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 3rd December, 2008 PNV