Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Galla Venkata Koteswara Rao vs The State Of Ap on 14 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
****
Review I.A.No.1 of 2025
in
WRIT PETITION NO: 21485/2024
Gorintla Chandra Sekhara Rao, S/o Gorintla Veeranna, aged
about 60 years, Occ: CEO / Secretary, R/o Dr. No.6/6,
Narasimha Sagar Road, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru
District, Andhra Pradesh – 534 426.
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Co-Operative Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi
Amaravathi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State and others.
... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 14.02.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
_____________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Page 2 of 9 SRS,J
W.P.No.21485 of 2024
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
+ Review I.A.No.1 of 2025
in
WRIT PETITION NO: 21485/2024
% 20.02.2025
Review I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 21485 of 2024
Gorintla Chandra Sekhara Rao, S/o Gorintla Veeranna, aged
about 60 years, Occ: CEO / Secretary, R/o Dr. No.6/6,
Narasimha Sagar Road, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru
District, Andhra Pradesh – 534 426.
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Co-Operative Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi
Amaravathi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State and others.
… Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Sardar Harinder Singh
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Tadisetti Venkata Ananda Rao,
Assistant Government Pleader for
Co-operation; Dr. Lakshmi Potnujri;
R. Surya Narayana, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services-I
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (1997) 9 SCC 736
2) (2020) 13 SCC 188 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 100
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 9 SRS,J
W.P.No.21485 of 2024APHC010422742024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVEPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Review I.A.No.1 of 2025
in
WRIT PETITION NO: 21485/2024
Between:
Gorintia Chandra Sekhara Rao …PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others …RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COOPERATION
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. P VARA PRASAD RAO
4. SRINIVAS BASAVA
The Court made the following order:
The petitioner filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the
respondents in not allowing him to continue as CEO/Secretary of respondent
Page 4 of 9 SRS,J
W.P.No.21485 of 2024No.6-Society till he attains the age of 62 years, on par with other government
employees as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV FR & LR) Dept., dated
31.01.2022; G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 01.03.2019; G.O.Ms.No.90 Agriculture and
Cooperation, dated 04.12.2020, Sections 115 C and D of the Andhra Pradesh
Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rule 28 (6 & 7) of the A.P. Co-
Operative Societies Rules, despite resolution dated 31.05.2024 of Person in
Charge Committee and General Body resolution No.2 dated 24.06.2024, as
illegal and arbitrary.
2. On 26.09.2024, this Court permitted learned counsel for the petitioner to
take out a personal notice to respondent No.6 and adjourned the matter to
24.10.2024. Further, respondents 4 and 5 were directed to produce records
relating to the resolution dated 24.06.2024.
3. On 24.10.2024, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7,
disputed the genuineness of the Three-men Committee resolution dated
31.05.2024 and the General Body Resolution dated 24.06.2024. In the said
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directed the learned Assistant
Government Pleader to produce records relating to the resolutions dated
31.05.2024 and 24.06.2024.
4. On 23.11.2024, Sri A. Srinivas, learned District Cooperative Officer and
Sri P. Trinath, learned Divisional Cooperative Officer appeared before the
Court and also produced the relevant records. Both the officers submitted that
the Three Men Committee of Ramannagudem Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Society Limited, submitted their resignation to the learned
Divisional Cooperative Officer, Eluru, on 07.06.2024 and the said resignation
was accepted. Thereafter, the Government appointed Official Person-In-
Charge / Three Men Committee by G.O.Rt.No.409 Agriculture & Cooperation
(COOP.II) Department, dated 27.06.2024. It was further submitted that after
Page 5 of 9 SRS,J
W.P.No.21485 of 2024
the resignation was accepted, there was no Official Person-In-Charge to the
said society, till the new Committee was appointed.
5. Original records were also produced before the court, for perusal. This
Court recorded a finding that prima facie the resolution dated 24.06.2024, said
to have been passed under the Chairmanship of the Three Men Committee, is
after their resignation and is without jurisdiction.
6. Learned Divisional Cooperative Officer, present in the Court sought time
to initiate proceedings against the concerned regarding the passing of
resolution dated 24.06.2024. At that juncture, this Court indicated to the
learned counsel for the petitioner that if the Court concludes that the
petitioner, CEO of the Society, made any false statement on oath, regarding
resolution dated 24.06.2024, necessary action will be initiated for perjury. The
matter was adjourned to 09.12.2024.
7. On 09.12.2024, the petitioner appeared before this Court. On perusal of
the entire record and after hearing the submissions on both sides, when the
Court was dictating the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought
permission to withdraw the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner
endorsed and sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner
who was present in the Court also signed below the endorsement. There after
the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
8. The present petition is filed seeking restoration of the writ petition by
engaging another counsel. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was
stated as follows:
“… In fact, I am having good case on merits. But however,
basing on the mis representation and threat perception created by the
Respondents, as if I am at fault, misrepresenting the facts and
manipulating the records, the previous counsel was sought
Page 6 of 9 SRS,J
W.P.No.21485 of 2024permission of this Hon’ble court and as per the accordance of said
permission the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Due to which
the valuable rights of me was effected including deprivation of two
years of service which ought to have served by me to department.
However, the said aspect was not considered in the impugned order.
That petitioner was put on mental pressure by the official
respondents as well as the 7th Respondent who is the Cavetor in the
writ petition. However, the previous counsel appearing in this matter
was also unfortunately not properly advised and properly guided me
as well as assisted this Hon’ble court.”
9. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner appeared before this Court on
23.11.2024 and 09.12.2024 and followed the Court proceedings. The
petitioner voluntarily withdrew the writ petition. By changing the Advocate the
present affidavit is filed by making allegations against the earlier Advocate.
The practice of changing advocates, making remarks against earlier
advocates and filing petitions is not only obnoxious but also reprehensible.
Such practice should be deprecated. Even the learned advocate should verify
the facts and events before venturing to file applications of this nature since
he may not have first-hand information regarding the events took place on an
earlier occassion.
10. In T.N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar1, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed as follows:
2. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for
clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-
on-Record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing
repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for
1
(1997) 9 SCC 736
Page 7 of 9 SRS,J
W.P.No.21485 of 2024
purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.
(emphasis is mine)
11. The Apex Court in Om Prakash v. Suresh Kumar2, observed as
follows:
15. As aforesaid, in the present case, the counsel who was engaged by
the appellant and had appeared for him before the High Court did not,
stricto sensu, transgress the authority conferred on him by the appellant.
Notably, the appellant filed review petition before the High Court by
engaging another advocate for reasons best known to him. This
Court has deprecated the conduct of such petitioners and has
opined that such review petitions should not be encouraged and
need to be dismissed, as expounded in T.N. Electricity Board v. N.
Raju Reddiar [T.N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC
736].” (emphasis is mine)
12. In the case at hand, as discussed supra the petitioner has voluntarily
withdrawn the writ petition. Later filed the present petition, by engaging
another Advocate, making allegations against the previous counsel. Such a
practice should be deprecated. If this type of application is entertained, it will
open a ponderous box to the litigants and the litigants start making allegations
against the Advocates.
13. The procedure adopted by the petitioner is a clear abuse of process.
The petitioner is not an illiterate and, infact, worked as CEO of a Society. The
audacity of the petitioner to file this type of petition shocks the conscience of
this Court. There are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
2
(2020) 13 SCC 188 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 100
Page 8 of 9 SRS,J
W.P.No.21485 of 2024
14. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does
not see any ground to set aside the order dated 09.12.2024 passed in the
above writ petition. Since the petitioner abused the process of the Court, this
is a fit case to impose compensatory costs against the petitioner.
15. Hence, this petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/-
payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, within four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order.
If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, the High Court Legal
Services Committee shall proceed against the petitioner, for recovery of the
amount as per law.
16. The Registry shall communicate copy of order to the High Court Legal
Services Committee, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi as well as
writ petitioner to the address shown in the writ affidavit.
A copy of the order shall be communicated to the Registrar (Judicial) for
taking necessary steps.
SUBBA REDDY SATTI,J
Date : 14.02.2025
Note: LR COPY TO BE MARKED
B/O
IKN
Page 9 of 9 SRS,J
W.P.No.21485 of 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Review I.A.No.1 of 2025
in
WRIT PETITION NO: 21485/2024
Date : 14.02.2025
Note: LR COPY TO BE MARKED
B/O
IKN
