IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 19509 of 2007 Between: B. Mahboobsaheb, S/o. Kasim Saheb, O/o. C.I.D., Department, Lakdi-ka-pul, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 D.G.P. & Govt. of A.P., Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. Police Officers Association, rep. by its President, V. Anantha Ramulu, Hyderabad. 4 K. Jana Reddy, Hon'ble Minister for Home, Government of A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a Writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Mandamus declaring that a) the proceedings of the 1st respondent in No. 15316/WNT/A1/01 dated 2-4-2007 as illegal and arbitrary and are opposed to Recognition of Service Association Rules 2001 and therefore liable to be set aside; b) direct the 1st respondent not to consider proposals of the 2nd respondent in respect of bye laws No. Rule XVII. c) direct the 1st & 2nd respondents to begin the process of election as expeditiously as possible. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 19509 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed by a Police Officer in the service of the State of Andhra Pradesh working as Head Constable, challenging the memo bearing No. 15316/WNT/A1/01 dated 02.04.2007 issued by the 1st respondent-State on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of the Recognition of Service Association Rules 2001 (‘the Rules’); to direct the 1st respondent not to consider the proposals of the 2nd respondent in respect of Bye-law No. XVII; and to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to initiate the process of elections to the 3rd respondent Association. The 3rd respondent is the A.P. Police Officers’ Association, which was formed during 1979. The 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 539 Home Department dated 6.8.1979 recognised the 3rd respondent Association and in terms of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1144 G.A.D. (Services) Department dated 8.8.1962. The petitioner was the President of the R-3 Association for two terms, during 1996-97 and for another term up to 2003. According to Bye-law No.XVII of the 3rd respondent-Association no member of the Association is entitled to hold an office in the Association in excess of two consecutive terms. After 2003, in the elections held on 6.4.2004 a new body was elected whose terms of office expired on 6.4.2007. It would appear that the 3rd respondent-Association through the 2nd respondent proposed certain amendments to its Bye-laws since the approval of the State Government is required in respect of service associations of Government employees inter alia in the Police Department. The proposals of the 3rd respondent-Association for amendment of its Bye-laws are stated to have been forwarded to the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent on 13.05.2006. Grant of approval by the Government was under consideration and in the circumstances the impugned memo was issued by the 1st respondent directing that in view of the active consideration of the proposals for amendment to the Bye-laws of the 3rd respondent- Association it is not desirable to conduct elections to the Association till amendments are issued and that the 2nd respondent was directed to issue necessary instructions to all Superintendents of Police and Unit Officers concerned not to conduct elections till approval is accorded by the 1st respondent to the amendment of the Bye-laws of the 3rd respondent- Association and till the elections are held in future the present District Units and State Body should continue. At the hearing today the learned Government Pleader for Home has submitted that approval has now been accorded and the amended Bye- laws have been issued in G.O.Ms. No. 113 Home (WNT) Department dated 15.06.2008 and therefore the direction in the impugned memo that elections should not take place has lost its significance and elections would now be held. In Para-12 of the writ petition it is vaguely alleged that the 2nd respondent without justification had suggested certain amendments to the 3rd respondent’s Bye-laws which were not proposed by the 3rd respondent and that the amendments so suggested by the 2nd respondent are of far reaching consequence and therefore the 1st respondent should be directed not to accept the recommendations or proposals of the 2nd respondent. Such a plea is wholly vague and conveys no meaning whatsoever. It is totally bereft of any particulars and no relief can be granted on the basis of such a vague pleading. In the circumstances this aspect of the relief sought in the writ petition viz., direction to the 1st respondent not to consider the proposals of the 2nd respondent cannot be granted and is rejected. In so far as the first relief sought viz., a declaration that the impugned memo dated 2.4.2007 is illegal, this grievance does not now survive as the amendments have now been approved by the 1st respondent and issued as stated by the learned Government Pleader in G.O.Ms. No. 113 Home Department dated 15.6.2008. As the directions in the impugned memo are operative only till amendments are issued the grievance regarding the memo no longer subsists since the amendments are issued. On the aforesaid analysis no relief can be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the amended Bye-laws, he is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies thereagainst. No order as to costs. Dt 11.07.2008 ------------------------ Pvks/pvsn Justice G.Raghuram