IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND NINE HON’BLE MR. ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos.1551 and 1622 of 2001 (Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order, dated 25-9-2001 in Writ Petition Nos.8365 and 11213 of 2001 on the file of this Court). WRIT APPEAL No.1551 of 2001: Between: M.Srinivas. … Appellant. And: The District Co-operative Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.V.Shivaji. Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Co-operation for R.1, R.2 & R.5. Sri V.Ajay Kumar for R.3. Sri G.V.Shivaji for R.4. WRIT APPEAL No.1622 of 2001: Between: Munganda Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Reptd., by its Chairman/Person Incharge, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. … Appellant. And: T. Satyanarayana and six others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.V.Shivaji. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.Ajay kumar for R.1. G.P. for Co-operation for R.2,3,4 & 6. None for R.5. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos.1551 and 1622 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.,) These two Writ Appeals arise out of common order dated 25-9-2001 in Writ Petition Nos.8365 and 11213 of 2001. Writ Appeal No.1551 of 2001 has been filed by the Director of Munganda Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.8365 of 2001, assailing order 10-4-2001 passed by the General Manager of respondent No.2-Bank, whereby respondent No.3 was transferred to respondent No.4-Society. Writ Appeal No.1622 of 2001 has been filed by Mungada Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, questioning the very same order, by which respondent No.3 in Writ Appeal No.1551 of 2001 was transferred. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.11213 of 2001. The facts, in brief, giving rise to filing of these two Writ Appeals are that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary in respondent No.6-Irusumanda Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Irusumanda, Ambajipeta Mandal, East Godavari District, through proceedings dated 17-11-1983. In the year 1999 he went on leave on medical grounds. When he sought to rejoin, respondent No.6- Society issued proceedings dated 17-4-2001, wherein it was stated that he was relieved from duty with effect from 30-4-1999. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.4-General Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Kakinada. On considering the said representation, respondent No.4 issued proceedings dated 10-4-2001 appointing the petitioner in respondent No.7-Munganda Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, as Secretary in the existing vacancy. Sri M.Srinivas, one of the Directors of respondent No.7-Society, approached respondent No.2- Commissioner & Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad, seeking annulment of transfer order of the petitioner. Before any orders were passed by respondent No.2, the said M.Srinivas filed Writ Petition No.8365 of 2001 questioning the said transfer order dated 10-4-2001. This Court granted interim suspension of operation of the said order on 26-4-2001. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued proceedings, dated 3- 5-2001, whereby the transfer order of the petitioner was annulled by him. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11213 of 2001. The learned single Judge disposed of both the Writ Petitions by a common order. While Writ Petition No.8365 of 2001 was dismissed on the ground that Sri M.Srinivas, the petitioner therein, has no locus standi to question the transfer order of the petitioner, Writ Petition No.11213 of 2001 was allowed by the learned Judge on the short ground that before the transfer order made in favour of the petitioner was annulled, respondent No.2 did not give notice and opportunity of hearing to him; and that, therefore, the said order of annulment was in violation of principles of natural justice. Questioning this order, Sri M.Srinivas (Director of respondent No.7-Society) and respondent No.7-Soceity filed these two Writ Appeals. We have heard Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent Nos.3 and 1 in Writ Appeal No.1551 and 1622 of 2001 respectively; and carefully perused the record. As regards the finding of the learned single Judge that Sri M.Srinivas, appellant in Writ Appeal No.1551 of 2001, has no locus standi, the learned counsel for the said appellant seriously disputed the same and submitted that being the Director, he has locus standi to question the transfer order, by which the petitioner has been posted as Secretary in respondent No.7-Society as he is affected by such transfer as a Director and also member of the said Society. In view of the fact that the transfer order, which was assailed in Writ Petition No.8365 of 2001, was annulled by respondent No.2, we feel that it is not necessary for us to give any specific finding thereon. With the annulment of the transfer order, the cause in Writ Petition No.8365 of 2001 ceased to exist and, in our opinion, the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the said Writ Petition as infructuous. With regard to the relief granted in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11213 of 2001, the order of transfer made in his favour was annulled by respondent No.2, who is the superior authority to respondent No.4, which transferred the petitioner to respondent No.7- Society. In our considered view, as the said annulment has adversely affected the interest of the petitioner, respondent No.2 ought to have given him an opportunity of hearing before passing such an order. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge in allowing Writ Petition No.11213 of 2001. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, having allowed the Writ Petition on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the learned single Judge ought to have directed respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is not as though Writ Petition No.11213 of 2001 was allowed on merits. Therefore, as a necessary corollary, the learned single Judge should have given liberty to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order after observing the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, during pendency of these Writ Appeals, the Government issued several orders, whereby the procedure and method of appointment and transfer of Paid Secretaries has been changed. In view of the same, while disposing of these Writ Appeals, we direct respondent No.2 to consider the issue pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner afresh after giving a notice and considering the explanation, if any, submitted by him, in the light of the Government Orders that may have been issued during the pendency of these Writ Appeals. Respondent No.2 shall complete this exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ., C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J., Dt.26-08-2009 MNR