THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23124 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner filed A.R.C.No.5 of 2008 before the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Oﬃcer, Golkonda Division at Hyderabad, the ﬁrst respondent herein, under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, stating that respondents 4 and 5 are not qualiﬁed to hold the oﬃces of President and Secretary respectively of the Journalist Cooperative Housing Society Limited and that the allotment of plots made in their favour be cancelled. He also ﬁled I.A.No.4 of 2008 for stay of construction over the plots allotted to respondents 4 and 5. The I.A. was dismissed on 28.05.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled C.T.A.No.69 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 01.09.2008. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri M.Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri S.V.Bhatt, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. The controversy in I.A.No.4 of 2008 and in C.T.A.No.69 of 2008 is very limited. The petitioner prayed for a declaration that respondents 4 and 5 are not entitled to hold the oﬃces of President and Secretary respectively and the allotment of plots made in their favour is contrary to the byelaws. The I.A. was for the relief of stay of construction of the plots. By that time, the plot allotted to the ﬁfth respondent was already given for development. The ﬁrst respondent was not inclined to grant order of stay. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Tribunal has gone into the details and to certain extent, expressed its view on the merits also. It is totally uncalled for. The consideration ought to have been limited to the feasibility or otherwise of granting stay prayed for by the petitioner. The Tribunal appears to have made those observations to examine the case as to whether the allotments were prima facie legal or not. However, the language employed by it gives an indication that the opinion is expressed finally. It is made clear that the observations made by the Tribunal shall not be treated as binding or ﬁnal pronouncement on the matter. It is not in dispute that by the date of ﬁling of the I.A. the plot allotted to the ﬁfth respondent was given for development. If the construction is stayed, at this stage, rights of several parties are involved. Any setback in this regard would have its own serious eﬀect on several individuals and institutions. Be that as it may, it goes without saying that any steps taken during the pendency of the A.R.C. would be subject to the result of the main case. It is represented that the fourth respondent has not yet made any construction and there is no likelihood of his commencing it, within two or three months. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the construction undertaken on the plot allotted to the ﬁfth respondent shall be subject to the result of A.R.C.No.5 of 2008 and the fourth respondent shall not commence construction without any speciﬁc orders from the ﬁrst respondent. The A.R.C. shall be disposed of, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.11.2008 kdl