IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

D

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

8-2-6841 431'l I 1 /A, NBT Nagar, Hyderabad.

[ 3488 ]

F20

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

N.1 ()

IN/AND

LNO

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Prefened Against the order

Daled2510212026 ln W.P.No.12402of 2025 on the file of the High Court'

K.Anil Kumar Goud, S/o. Pentaiah Gaud, Aged 48, Occ' Business, R/o' 8-2-

684t43t1, NBT Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

...APPELLANTTTHIRD PARTY

AND

1. P. Venugopal Goud, S/o. Ramulu Gaud, Aged 58 years, Occ' Business, FUo M'B

Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara hills, Hyderabad.

z. E. Vadaiah Gaud, S/o. Lite E.Mallaiah, Aged 62 years, Occ. Business, Fi/o' H'no

6-3-12431139t1, Opp. Raj Bhavan, SM Maktha, Hyderabad'

3. B. T.Anjaiah, S/o. Late T.Bikshapathi, Aged 56 years, Occ' Business, R/o' H'no

4. The District Prohibition and Excise officer, Functional Registrar and Excise

Superintendent, Hyderabad Dist., Nampally, Hyderabad

S. Th; District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad Division, Sth floor, Gruha Kalpa

Building, Opp Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad

6. The Aslt. Registrar of Co-op Societies Cum-Election Officer, for Toddy Tappers,

Co-op Society Ltd., Golconda Division, Hyderabad

7. The State io-Operative Election Authority (SCEA), 3rd Floor, Gruha Kalpa

Building, Opp Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad, 500001'

8. State ol Telangana, Rep by its Principat Secretary to the Govemment Revenue

Prohibition and Excise Secretariat Hyderabad

9. The Toddy Tappers co-op society Ltd., chintal Basthi, (Regd. No. ES/8/20/

1993, Hyderabad, R/o. Chintal Basthi, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

...RESPONDE NTS/RESPON D E NTS

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition urtder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to GRANT

LEAVE for fillirrg of the present Appeal against the Orders Dated 25.02.2026 in WP No.

12402 of 2025 pending the disposal of the main appeal.

l.A. NO: 3 OF:2026

Petition urder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend

operation of inrpugned order WP.No.12402 of 2025 dated 25.02.2026 to the extent of

appointing the Person ln-Charge to Conduct Elections to Respondent No.9 society is

concerned penJing disposat of the present writ appeal.

counsel for the Appellant: sRl VEDULA sRlNlvAs, sENtoR couNsEL FoR

SRI A.RAJA CHANDRA SHEKER GOUD

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l TO 3: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY.K.V

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 8: SRI A.JAGAN, Gp FoR pRoHlBlTloN

&

EXCISE

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 7: SRI SYED QADEER,

GP FOR COOPERATION

Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI P.VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY

The Court macle the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI.ANGANA

AT I{YDERABAT)

TTIE HOTBLE fiIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESIH XI'MAR SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

I.A.No.1 ()F 20.26

inland

WRIT APPEAL No.375 0F 20.26

DATE: O1.O4.2O26

Between:

K. Anil Kumar Goud

....Appellant

And

P. Venugopal Goud and 8 others

....Respondent

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing

Sri A.Raja Chandra Shekhar Goud, learned counsel for the appellant;

Sri K.V.Rusheek Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 3;

Sri A.Jagan, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise

appearing for respondent No.4; Sri Syed Qadeer, learned Government

Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent No.S and perused

the record.

2. The appellant, who claims to be a member of respondent No-9-

Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society Limited, Chintal Basthi,

Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") and was appointed

as the Chairman of the Three Member Person-in-Charge (PIC)

Committee thereof by proceedings dated 13.10.2025 has preferred the

...d#i..

2

present .lppeal under Clause 15 of the Letters patent, assailing the

common order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge

in w.P.Nos.5234 and L24o2 of 2o2s. By the said common order, the

learned slingle Judge has dismissed w.p.No.5234 of 2o2s and allowed

w.P.No. L24o2 of 2025 by directing the respondents to appoint a

Person-ir: -charge to conduct elections to the respondent No.9-Society.

Factual rnatrix (in brief)

3. The respondent No.9-Society is registered under the provisions

of the Telangana co-operative societies Act, Lg64 (for short , " 1964

Act"). The last elections to the Managing committee of the said

Society w,3re conducted on 13. t2.2o14, and the tenure of the elected

body cam,3 to an end in December,2019. Thereafter, the affairs of the

respondent No.9-Society were managed by a person-in-charge

(plc)

Committer: appointed by the competent authorit5r.

4. tn or:der to conduct fresh elections, steps were initiated for

preparation of the list of eligible members/voters. Disputes arose with

regard to '-he inclusion and exclusion of certain members, leading to

multiple rt:presentations. The respondent No.4 (Functional Registrar),

issued proceedings dated O5.LO.2O21, directing restoration of certain

members. Pursuant thereto, a final voters list was prepared, and

elections were conducted on 06.O6.2022, resulting in the constitution

of a newly ,:lected Managing Committee.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents herein (who were the writ

petitioners in w.P.No.12402 of 2o2sl instituted o.p.No. L4 of 2022

3

before the Co-operative Tribunal under Section 61(3) of the 1964 Act,

calling in question the validity of the said elections. By order dated

23.01.2025, the Tribunal allowed the election petition, set aside the

elections held on 06.06.2022, and directed the official respondents to

take necessary steps for conducting fresh elections to the Society.

6. Challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the respondent

No.9 society along with elected members of the Managing Committee

preferred W.P.No.5234 of 2025 before this Court. By order dated

19.O3.2O25, the learned Single Judge granted an interim suspension

of the Tribunal's order and permitted the elected committee to

continue in office pending further adjudication.

7. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the President and

Vice-President of the respondent No.9-society tendered their

resignations on O7.1O.2O25. Consequent thereto, respondent No.4

issuid proceedings dated 13.IO.2O25, appointing a three-member PIC

Committee, with the appellant herein as its Chairman, to manage the

affairs of the Societ5r.

8. Meanwhile the respondents herein (petitioners in the election

petition) frled W.P.No.l24O2 of.2025, seeking a direction to the official

respondents to appoint a Person-in-Charge Committee and to conduct

fresh elections in terms of the Tribunal's order dated 23.OL-2025. Ttre

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, by proceedings dated

04.11 .2025, restored the licence of the respondent No.9-Society upon

b itt

.'.:

, :

;,rt:-

4

impositio^ of a fine, taking note of the appointment of the person-in-

Charge Committee on 13.1O.2O25.

9. By a

'rommon order dated 2s.o2.2o26, the learned Single Judge

dismissed w.P.No.5234 of 2o2s thereby upholding the Tribunal,s

order datr:d 23.ot.2o2s and allowed w.p.N o.l24o2 of 2o2s,directing

the respondents to appoint a Person-in-Charge to conduct elections to

the Sociebr in accordance with due procedure.

10. In c:ompliance with the aforesaid directions, the Functional

Registrar issued proceedings dated 16.os.2o26, appointing a fresh

three-merr.ber Person-in-charge committee, in substitution of the

earlier contmittee, and directing that elections be conducted within a

period of three months.

11. Aggrieved by the said common order dated 2s.o2.2026, the

appellant herein, who was the chairman of the erstwhile person-in_

charge cornmittee, has preferred the present writ Appeal along with

I.A.No.1 of 2026 seeking leave to file the appeal.

Submissions on behatf of the appellant

12- l,ear:eed senior counsel for the appellant, assailed the

impugned common order and has advanced submissions as under:

i) That the appellant was duly appointed as the chairman of the

PIC committee by proceedings dated r3.Lo.2o25 issued by the

compr:tent authority in exercise of powers under section

32(7)(rt)(i) of the 1964 Act. The said appointment continued to

remai' in force as on the date of passing of the impugned

5

common order dated 25.02.2026. The appellant was neither

impleaded as a part5r in W.P.No.l24O2 of 2025 nor was any

notice served upon him. The impugned direction to appoint a

PIC Committee has the effect of divesting the appellant and the

existing committee members appointed on L3.LO.2O25. The

impugned order was passed without affording the appellant an

opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of

natural justice.

ii) That the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration

the fact that a valid PIC Committee had already been

constituted on 13.LO.2O25 by the competent authorit5r, which

was subsequently recognized and affirmed by the

Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, uide proceedings dated

04.11 .2025, inasmuch as the restoration of the toddy shop

'

licence was expressly predicated on the validity of the PIC

Committee. Therefore, the direction to appoint a PIC was

unnecessary and rendered the earlier appointment redundant.

ii! That the appointment of the appellant as Chairman of the PIC

Committee uide proceedings dated L3.1O.2O25 was never

challenged before any competent forum by any of the parties.

The learned Single Judge ought not to have issued a direction

that effectively nullified a valid administrative order without

hearing the affected Persons.

6

iv) Thzrt the consequential proceedings dated 16.03.2026 issued by

the respondent No.4 in compliance with the impugned order,

are also illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, as they

have been issued without issuing any notice to the appellant or

to lhe existing members of the pIC committee. The appellant

sought that the impugned order be set aside and that the

appointment made on 13.1o.2o25 be allowed to continue.

Submissircns on behalf of the respondents

13. Lea:ned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned

common c,rder and has advanced submissions as under:

i) That the appellant herein was not a part5r to the writ petition

and was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the

proc:eedings. The relief sought in w.p.No.l24o2 of 2025 was

dire':ted exclusively against the official respondents for their

failu re to implement the order of the Cooperative Tribunal dated

23.c1-2o25. The direction to appoint a pIC was a mandamus

issued to the statutory authorities, who were already parties to

the writ petition. The appellant, being a third party to the

proceedings, cannot claim any vested or enforceable right to

continue as chairman of the plc committee and the office of

the appellant was subject to the outcome of t]le pending

litigation.

ii) That the appellant was not a necessary party to the writ

procr:edings. The direction issued by the learned single Judge is

:i

I

il

7

a general direction to the statutory authorities to implement the

Tribunal's order by appointing a PIC Committee in accordance

with law. The appellant cannot claim a right of hearing in

proceedings where no specific relief was sought against him.

iii) That the learned Single Judge, by dismissing W.P.No.5234 of

2o25,has affirmed the order of the Cooperative Tribunal dated

23.01.2025, wherein the elections conducted on O6.O6.2022

were declared illegal and set aside. The necessary and inevitable

consequence of setting aside the elections is that the

management of the society must vest in a PIC Committee to

conduct fresh elections. Therefore, the direction issued to

appoint a PIC Committee is not only lawful but also mandatory

for giving effect to the Tribunal's order.

ir) That the appointment of a PIC Committee on 13.1O.2O25 during

'

the pendency of the writ petition, does not render the writ

petition infructuous. The said appointment was made without

awaiting the final adjudication of the writ petition and cannot

override judicial directions. The learned Single Judge has

rightly directed the authorities to appoint a PIC Committee "by

following due procedlrre,' which necessarily inctudes the power

to rectify any irregular or improper appointments made earlier.

The subsequent order of the authorities dated L6.O3.2O26 is in

compliance with the court's direction and is not a matter to be

decided in this appeal.

444!tt a.J.

8

v) That if the appellant is aggrieved by the proceedings dated

16.03.2026 appointing a new PIC Committee, he has an

indr:pendent and efficacious remedy to challenge the same

befc,re an appropriate forum. The appellant cannot challenge

the learned Single Judge's order of 25.02.2026, which was

pas:;ed d.uring the subsistence of his appointment and in the

cou:se of pending proceedings.

14. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and

perused the material on record.

Consideration by this Court

15. It iri pertinent to note that the appellant was admittedly not a

party to the original writ proceedings, his claim to locus standi is

founded upon his appointment as Chairman of the PIC by respondent

No.4. ui.de proceedings dated 13.10.2025, and the contention that the

impugned order dated 25.02.2026, directing appointment of a PlC,

adversely,effects his position.

16. It is a settled principle that a third parff, though not arrayed as

a party to the proceedings, may, in appropriate cases, be permitted to

maintain an appeal if the impugned order directly and adversely

affects hi:; legal rights, particularly where such order is passed

without aflording an opportunity of hearing. However, it is to be noted

that the direction issued by the learned single Judge, being in the

nature of zt writ of mandamus to the statutory authorities (respondent

9

Nos.4 to 8) to appoint a PIC Committee for the purpose of conducting

fresh elections to the respondent No.9-Societ5r, is general in character

and does not specifically target or direct the removal of any identilied

individual from office. The said direction merely enjoins upon the

competent authorities to discharge their statutory obligation and

leaves the constitution of the PIC Committee to their discretion, to be

exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1964 Act

and the Rules framed thereunder.

L7. Further, the appellant's appointment dated L3-IO.2O25 was an

administrative arrangement made by the respondent No.4 during the

pendency of the writ petitions being W.P.Nos.5234 and, 12402 of

2025. The said appointment was made in the backdrop of the

resignations of the elected Managing Committee and subsequent

internal developments within the respondent No.9-Society. However,

the core dispute before the Court pertained to the legality of the

elections held on 06.06.2022. Tine Cooperative Tribunal had set aside

the said elections, and the learned Single Judge, upon consideration,

upheld the order of the Tribunal. Once the elections were declared

illegal, the continLrance of the management which emanated from

such elections, including any subsequent administrative

arrangements made during the pendency of the litigation, necessarily

were subject to the outcome of the proceedings. Therefore, the

appellant who assumed charge as Chairman of the PIC Committee

subsequent to the Tribunal's order and during the pendency of the

10

writ petitions, cannot be said to have acquired any vested right to

continue rn such capacit5r.

18. Further, the relief sought in w.p.No.r24o2 of 2o2s was for

directing the official respondents to discharge their statutory

obligation of constituting a PIC Committee and conducting fresh

elections in terms of the Tribunal's order. The said relief was directed

against the statutory authorities, who were already parties before the

court. In such proceedings, & person holding an office pursuant to

an administrative arrangement which by its very nature is a stop-gap

arrangemr:nt cannot be said to be a necessary or proper party, unless

a specific relief is sought against him.

19. It is to be noted that the finding of the learned Single Judge, in

dismissing w.P.No.5234 of 2o2s and thereby affrrming the order of

the Cooperative Tribunal declaring the elections held on 06.06.2022

as illegal, has not been challenged in the present writ appeal. The

appellant has neither questioned the Tribunal's order dated

23.OL.2O2i; nor the dismissal of W.p. No. 5234 of 2025.

2o.. Further, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to

appoint a I)lC Committee for conducting elections cannot be faulted,

as it is in

'ronsonance with the statutory scheme. Section 32(Zl(a) of

the 1964 l\ct empowers the Registrar to appoint a plc

Committee

where the l\,lanaging Committee is not duly constituted.

i

I

I

h

11

2L. Further, the validity of the subsequent proceedings dated

16.03.2026 is not the subject matter of the present writ appeal, as the

same came into existence after the impugned judgment dated

25.O2.2026.

22. It is well settled that the appointment .of a PIC Committee is

only a temporary arrangement to facilitate the conduct of fresh

elections. The constitution of such a committee falls within the

domain of the competent authority, to be exercised in accordance with

the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The

appellant has failed to demonstrate that the subsequent appointment

of the PIC Committee is in contravention of any statutory provision. In

the absence of any such infirmit5r, the claim of the appellant to

continue as Chairman of the earlier PIC Committee cannot be

sustained.

23. It is relevant to note that this Court, while exercising appellate

jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, would not

ordinarily interfere with findings of fact, particularly when such

Iindings are based on a proper appreciation of evidence by the

Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the

appellant has failed to demonstrate any patent elTor of law,

jurisdictional infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order

warranting interference.

,

\

\

t2

Conclusion

24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view

that the u'rit appeal is devoid of merit, and is liable to be dismissed.

25. Acc,rrdingly, I.A.No.1 of 2026 and the Writ Appeal are

dismissed

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed. No costs-

Sd/.A.V.S. PRASAD

To

1.

2

3.

4.

5.

6.

PSK./PMK

tw

/

.,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 01 10412026

COMMOhI JUDGMENT

lA.No.l OF 2026

IN/AND

WA.No.37'5 of 2026

t)

', |-

(:'

10 iPP

?t,,';q

*

DISMISSING THE IA AND WRIT APPEAL

WITHOUT COSTS