IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 1032 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/09/2007 in WP NO : 1366 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Girijan Coop.Corporation Limited, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam, rep.by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Mohd Abdul Ali, S/o. Mohd.Abdul Hameed, R/o.Bhainsa village and mandal, Adilabad District 2 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Adilabad District, at Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M.S. Sudeep Reddy Counsel for the Respondent NO.2.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 1032 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against order dated 27.9.2007 in W.V.M.P. No. 422 of 2006 in W.P.M.P. No. 1627 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 1366 of 2006. The 1st respondent ﬁled the aforementioned writ petition seeking a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction, interdicting the 2nd respondent herein from proceeding further in the enquiry under Section 60-A of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, arising out of Notice dated 3.1.2006 in Proceedings Rc. No.1717/2005-E, on the ﬁle of the appellant. Initially, on 27.1.2006, an interim order was passed by a learned single judge of this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 1627 of 2006 staying the proceedings impugned in the writ petition dated 3.1.2006 on the ground that the said proceedings were initiated after the retirement of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner from service. Thereafter, the appellant-Corporation ﬁled vacate petition seeking vacation of the said interim order. However, through order dated 27.9.2006, a learned single judge of this Court, declined to vacate the said order and accordingly dismissed the vacate application. Aggrieved, the appellant- Corporation, which is the 2nd respondent, ﬁled the present appeal. Admittedly, by the impugned order, the learned single judge while declining to vacate the interim order, directed that the writ petition itself be listed for hearing. Since the impugned order is only interlocutory in nature, we do not feel it appropriate to interfere with the said order. However, the writ petition may be listed for hearing before the learned single judge on 5th November, 2008. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of reserving liberty to the appellant to raise all the contentions urged in this writ appeal before the learned single Judge. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 22nd September, 2008 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J pnb