Polls Can’t be Held if Society is Suspended: HC

Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court held that elections to a cooperative society cannot proceed when the registration of the society stood suspended by an order of the Cooperative Tribunal. The judge disposed of a writ petition filed by Kunala Suresh challenging an election notice issued for the Asian Suncity Flat Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Cooperative Society at Serilingampally in Rangareddy district. The petitioner contended that the election officer issued a notice in April 2025 scheduling elections to the managing committee of the society in May 2025 even though the Cooperative Tribunal had earlier passed an interim order suspending the registration of the society and the election process.

The respondents argued that the appointment of an ad hoc committee and the initiation of elections followed earlier directions of the High Court and a division bench order directing that elections be conducted in accordance with law. They sought vacation of the interim suspension earlier granted by the court. After examining the record, the judge noted that the Tribunal’s interim order suspending the registration of the society remained in force and no higher forum had set aside that order. The judge observed that once the registration of the society stood suspended, the society cannot be treated as existing in law and therefore elections cannot be conducted. The judge emphasised that judicial discipline required courts and authorities to respect and give effect to orders of competent tribunals until those orders were modified or vacated. Conducting elections despite the subsisting suspension would amount to acting contrary to that principle. The judge directed the authorities to pursue appropriate proceedings before the Cooperative Tribunal. As an interim arrangement, the district cooperative officer must appoint an official person in-charge to manage the affairs of the society until the tribunal decided the pending applications.

Cops challenge promotion process

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a batch of writ petitions challenging promotions made to the post of additional superintendent of police (ASP) (non-cadre). The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by N. Venu Gopal Reddy and others questioning the action of the state authorities in effecting promotions without completing the required preparatory exercise in the feeder cadres. It was the case of the petitioners that the state authorities made certain promotions to the post of superintendent of police (non-cadre) without first reviewing the earlier ad hoc promotions made in the cadre of ASP and without preparing year-wise promotion panels as mandated under Rule 6 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities were required to first prepare year-wise panels in the cadre of ASP after completing the process of final allocation in the cadre of deputy superintendent of police (DSP) pursuant to the final seniority list issued on November 29, 2018. Counsel contended that promotions made without undertaking the necessary preparatory exercise in the feeder cadre were contrary to the service rules.

The authorities considered the cases of the officers' junior to the rank of petitioners but excluded the petitioners on the ground that they had not completed the required service in the cadre of ASP. Such action was arbitrary and discriminatory when the foundational exercise of preparing year-wise panels and finalising the seniority position had not yet been completed, the petitioners contended. The petitioners, therefore, sought directions to prepare year-wise panels for promotion from DSP to ASP in accordance with Rule 6 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules. The panel adjourned the matter for further hearing.

Civic body quizzed over digging up road

Justice S. Chalapathi Rao of the Telangana High Court quizzed the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA) over allegations that a public access road to a residential plot was dug up despite building permission earlier granted by the authorities. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the legal representatives of B. Srinivasulu, who alleged that the respondents were attempting to close the only access road to a building constructed in a layout at Lashkar Singaram in Hanamkonda mandal of Warangal district. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the layout contained an open space from which two plots were carved out and building permissions were granted. It was contended that the petitioner and two others constructed buildings pursuant to those approvals. Notices regarding certain alleged violations were earlier issued and explanations were furnished.

During the hearing, the judge asked the authorities who had approved the building permission. When the officials stated that they had granted permission, the court questioned why the road was dug up after granting such approval and remarked that due process ought to have been followed. Observing that the land was admittedly an open space, the judge expressed doubt as to why the authorities would dig up the road after granting permission and wondered whether the act could have been carried out by private persons. The court directed the petitioner to file the sale deed to ascertain the location of the road and asked the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority and the Warangal Municipal Corporation to verify the actual situation.