IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 495 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/9/2007 in WP NO :18811 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Sri P. Harikrishna Reddy, S/o Sri Sripathi Reddy, H. No. 2-2-1109/5/B/5/6, Central Excise Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 2 Sri M.S.V. Navin Chandra, S/o Sri Prabu, High Court of A.P., C-811, N.G.O's Colony, Vanasthalipura, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. P. Anjana Devi, W/o Sri Vishwanath Reddy, High Court of A.P., H. No. 16-1-24/59/11RT, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad-59. 4 Smt. U. Sudha, W/o Sri Giridhar Reddy, High Court of A.P., Block-I, Flat No. 102, Janapriya Abodes Apartments, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. T. Rama Tulasi, W/o Sri Ramesh Babu, H. No. 21-154, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Government of A.P., Revenue (ASNI) Department rep by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Registrar of AP Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, A.P., Gruhakalpa Buildings Joint Registrar./District Coop. Officer, Hyderabad Urban District, Hyderabad. 3 The AP HC. Employees Mutually Aided Coop. Housing Society Ltd., Hyderabad. repby its Secretary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.D.V.BHADRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2:G.P. FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mr.M.V.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.495 OF 2008. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellants herein, who are the writ petitioners, filed this appeal inter alia seeking to assail the orders of the learned Single Judge ordering notice in an application, wherein they sought suspension of the bye-law which is included in the main writ petition. Though several contentions are sought to be urged, however, normally this Court is not suspending any statutory rule or bye-law, whenever it is challenged. In view of the same, we are of the view that the best way is only to hear the writ petition itself. Having regard to the urgency expressed by the learned Counsel, we deem it appropriate that the writ petition can be disposed of. Hence, we do not find any merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing before the regular Court hearing the matters, on 16.06.2008. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. Date: 11.06.2008 ____________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J. GS