Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Guntur District Milk Producers ... vs Sangam Milk Producers Company ... on 1 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in WRIT APPEAL No.308 of 2021
and
WRIT APPEAL No.308 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Guntur District Milk Producers Sangam,
Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangam (AIKS),
Guntur District Unit, P.L. Rao Bhavan,
2/7 Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District,
Rep. by its President Kanchumati Ajay Kumar.
.. Appellant.
Versus
Sangam Milk Producers Company Limited,
Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi, S. Jagarlamudi,
Guntur District, Represented by its Director
V. Dharma Rao and others.
.. Respondents.
Counsel for the appellant/applicant : Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy
Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr.Advocate
for Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri
Counsel for respondent Nos.3&4 : Mr. S. Sriram,
Advocate General
Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. K. Appa Rao, Standing Counsel
Date of hearing : 01.07.2021
Date of judgment : 01.09.2021
JUDGMENT
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior
2 HCJ & NJS,J
I.A.No.2/2021 in WA.No.308/ 2021
& WA.No.308/2021
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Sri Ram, learned
Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2021 is an application for leave to prefer appeal against
an interim order dated 07.05.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in
I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.9279 of 2021.
3. At the outset, it will be relevant to state that being aggrieved by
the aforesaid interim order, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by
its Special Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and
Fisheries (Dy.&Vig.) Department, had preferred an appeal, being
W.A.No.281 of 2021. This application for leave to appeal was also heard
on the day when the aforesaid appeal was heard.
4. In the application for leave, it is pleaded that the applicant along
with three others had filed a public interest litigation, being P.I.L.No.423
of 2013, against the conversion of Guntur District Milk Producers Mutually
Aided Cooperative Union as Sangam Milk Producer Company and had
submitted representations dated 29.05.2019 and 18.09.2020 to the
Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries
Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to take appropriate action
against the Chairman, Managing Director and other officials of the
Company for mismanagement and mortgage of the properties of the
Government and to take over the assets of the Government.
5. Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy submits that the applicant/appellant had
filed I.A.No.3 of 2021 in the writ petition seeking its impleadment as
respondent No.4 in the writ petition but, without giving opportunity to the
applicant/appellant and without considering the contents of the implead
petition, the learned single Judge had suspended the impugned
G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 27.04.2021. While endorsing the stand taken by the
3 HCJ & NJS,J
I.A.No.2/2021 in WA.No.308/ 2021
& WA.No.308/2021
learned Advocate General in W.A.No.281 of 2021, he has submitted that
as the conversion of the writ petitioner No.1 entity as a producer company
from a mutually aided co-operative society is pending adjudication, the
impugned interim order is not sustainable. He places reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian v.
P. Veldurai, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 214, with regard to the
executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and in
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, reported in (2013) 6 SCC
616, in the context of the power of the Court to go into the merits and
demerits of the Government policy.
6. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
writ petitioners, submits that the applicant/appellant is not a necessary
party as G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 27.04.2021, impugned in the writ petition,
was not issued at the instance of the applicant/appellant. It is submitted
that the writ appeal preferred by the State against the interim order has
been extensively argued by the learned Advocate General and, therefore,
no case is made out for grant of leave to the applicant/appellant.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant
that the learned single Judge ought not to have passed the interim order
without considering the application filed by the applicant/appellant for its
impleadment in the writ petition, merits no acceptance in view of the fact
that prima facie, the applicant/appellant does not appear to be a
necessary party in view of the fact that G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 27.04.2021
does not indicate that the same came to be issued because of
representation filed by the applicant/appellant. In any case, as the State
4 HCJ & NJS,J
I.A.No.2/2021 in WA.No.308/ 2021
& WA.No.308/2021
has preferred an appeal against the interim order which is under challenge
and as the application filed by the applicant/appellant for its impleadment
in the writ petition is pending consideration before the learned single
Judge, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
9. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2021 is dismissed. Correspondingly, the
writ appeal stands dismissed without going into the contentions advanced
on the appeal. No costs. Other pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
10. We make it clear that as the dismissal of this appeal is not on
merits, the same will in no way affect the merits of W.A.No.281 of 2021.
We would also like to observe that the implead petition filed by the
applicant/appellant in the writ petition may be decided without being
influenced by any observations made in this order.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
IBL
