IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4837 of 2008 Between: Sri Bhim Bahadur, S/o. Yamlal, Tenali Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. R/o. Tenali, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Tenali Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. T.B. Road, Kothapet, Tenali, Guntur District, Rep by its Secretary. 2 Divisional Co-operative Officer, Tenali, Guntur District. 3 Penumdi Hari Prasad, S/o. P.B. Sankara Rao,The Tenali Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd. T.B. Road, Kothapet, Tenali, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 2 in not exercising the power under Section 61 of the Act and not interfering with the action of the respondent No. 1 in promoting the Respondent No. 3 as the attender instead of petitioner though the 3rd respondent in not eligible and who is much junior to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the well-settled principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Watchman in Tenali Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, the first respondent. In the recent past, the first respondent effected promotion to the post of Attender. The third respondent, who too was a Watchman, was promoted and appointed as Attender. Claiming that he is senior to the third respondent and better suited for being promoted, the petitioner approached the second respondent with a petition, dated 19.11.2007. The second respondent issued proceedings, dated 01.02.2008, stating that the Managing Committee of the first respondent is the competent authority and that he does not have any power to interfere in the matter. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) vests powers of adjudication with the second respondent in respect of all disputes between any society and its members or outsiders, except the disputes that arise out of disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, the petition filed before the second respondent is not the one against any disciplinary proceedings. It was obligatory on the part of the second respondent to entertain the petition, exercise the powers under Section 61 of the Act by calling for remarks from the first respondent and to render his decision. For all practical purposes, the second respondent refused to exercise these powers. The same is contrary to law. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the proceedings, dated 01.02.2008. The second respondent is directed to entertain the petition submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in exercise of powers under Section 61 of the Act, in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 17.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}