Telangana High Court
The Fishermen Cooperative Society, vs The State Of Telangana, on 2 May, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.6035 OF 2021,
WRIT PETITION NO.10852 OF 2023,
WRIT PETITION NO.8247 OF 2025
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.12409 OF 2025
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.6035 of 2021
W.P.No.6035 of 2021 was filed challenging the proceedings
No.1235/E2/2018 dt.29.03.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of
principles of natural justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.6035 of 2021 are that
the petitioner is the Fishermen Cooperative Society of Pillalamarri
Village, Suryapet Mandal and District and all its members are fishermen
by profession and are eking out their livelihood by conducting fishing
operations. The society is having two tanks under its operation, i.e.,
Shobha Samudram and Kethavani tank. The fishermen of Pillalamarri
Village therefore approached the 3rd respondent for registration of the
society under Section 8 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act,
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
1964 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1964') and the same was registered vide
Registration No.01/QFC/2018 dt.09.04.2018 and a certificate of
registration was also issued by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the
petitioner society paid lease amount of Rs.26,980/- for the Fasli year
2018 to the Fisheries Department on 18.04.2018 in respect of the two
tanks and also deposited the fish seed in the two tanks with their own
expenses and the authorities also issued fish seed certification and
stocking certificate. The members of the petitioner society have
therefore been requesting the authorities to permit the petitioner society
to pay the lease amount and also to grant permission for conducting
fishing operations in respect of the said two tanks and the society passed
resolutions and submitted representations. However, when there was no
decision taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.21679 of 2020 and this Court has disposed of the said Writ
Petition on 07.12.2020 directing the 3rd respondent to consider the
representations of the petitioner society and to take action in accordance
with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the said order. In the meantime, the 4th respondent society filed a
petition under Section 77 of the Act of 1964 before the 2nd respondent to
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
revise the certificate of registration granted in favour of the petitioner
society on the following grounds:-
(1) "Pillalamarri village is in the limits of Suryapet fisheries
cooperative society.
(2) From the formation of Suryapet fisheries cooperative society
fishing activities are going on in Pallalamarri village.
(3) There are six members from Pillalamarri village.
(4) The Cooperative Act provisions were not followed for the
formation of Pillalamarri village cooperative society and the
present Suryapeta cooperative society has been formed.
(5) This society has been formed by violating the acts.
The 2nd respondent observed as under:-
1. "Fisheries Cooperative society, suryapet has been formed as per
the provisions of the 1952 on 17.09.1958 under registration
No.297/T/H.
2. In by-law it is mentioned as Suryapet taluk.
3. It is came to know that as per CF-106 suryapet cooperative
society ramagudem and pillamarri village ponds are under lease.
4. The by-law of suryapet cooperative society has been made as per
the 1952 Act, and no changes were made to the same after the
enforcement of Amendment 1964 cooperative act. It is noticed
that no officer has taken steps to rectify By-law, N-Block.
5. Present the membership details of suryapet cooperative society
Suryapet - 183, Pillamarri - 06, Rayanagudem - 52.
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
6. It is noticed the above said issues are pending before court,
human rights.
7. The persons earlier worked one district officer gave reply to Rti
letter stating that the pillalamarri village is in the suryapet limits."
Thus observing, the 2nd respondent, vide the impugned orders
dt.29.03.2019, has informed the petitioner society that the petitioner
society is within the limits of Suryapet Fisheries Co-operative Society as
there are 6 members of that village in the society and that it was
separated from the Suryapet Co-operative Society without following the
rules. Therefore, the District Fisheries Officer, Suryapet was directed to
form the Pillalamarri Co-operative Society as per the provisions of the
Act of 1964 within a period of 45 days as this society has been
constituted without bifurcating the earlier parent society namely
Suryapet Fishermen Cooperative Society, i.e., the 4th respondent herein.
3. Challenging the revision order dt.29.03.2019, the present Writ
Petition has been filed stating that the 3rd respondent is the authority
who has registered the petitioner society after following due procedure
and issued registration certificate on 09.04.2018 and the petitioner
society has been functioning ever since and has been conducting fishing
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
operations in the subject tanks and respondents 2 and 3 are well aware
about the existence and activities of the society. It was stated that
Pillalamarri Village is a free village and the petitioner society is an
independent society and therefore, the need for bifurcation of the society
from the 4th respondent society does not arise. It is submitted that in
W.P.No.6725 of 2018 earlier filed by the Chief Promoter of the
petitioner society, a counter has been filed by the Fisheries Department
stating that Pillalamarri Village and its water sources namely Shobha
Samudram tank are not included in the area of operation of any other
fishermen society and that it is a free village and therefore, Pillalamarri
Village is a free village and the subject tanks are not in the area of
operation of any other society and therefore, the question of bifurcation
for formation of a new society may not arise. Thus submitting,
W.P.No.6035 of 2021 has been filed. Along with this Writ Petition, a
copy of the counter affidavit filed by the Fisheries Department in
W.P.No.6725 of 2018 is also filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon
the letter issued by the District Fisheries Officer to the Commissioner of
Fisheries, dt.21.12.2017 stating that about 70 fishermen of Pillalamarri
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
Village have submitted a representation for organisation and registration
of Fishermen Cooperative Society at Pillalamarri Village of Suryapet
District and that as seen from the records, the village and water source
of the village are not included in any Fishermen Cooperative Society in
the District and therefore, it is a free village not covered under the area
of operation of any society and that there are two departmental
tanks/I.B. tanks namely Shobha Samudram and Kethovoni Cheruvu and
a GP tank with an extent of 215 acres / 86.07 hectares water spread area
and the representation seeking to organise a society in Pillalamarri
Village has been forwarded to the concerned FDO to explore
possibilities for the organisation of the proposed society at Pillalamarri
and to submit a feasibility report in the matter for taking further course
of action and in compliance therewith, the FDO, Suryapet has submitted
a detailed viability and feasibility report in the matter and the skill test in
pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.74, AH DD & Fisheries (Fish-II) Dept.,
dt.21.10.2011 has been conducted in the presence of the Three Man
Committee constituted in the Government Orders for identification of
genuine and skilled fishermen and out of 70 applicants, 40 persons
attended the skill test conducted on 08.11.2017 and 35 persons were
identified as genuine fishermen having the fishing skills and therefore,
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
the registration of Pillalamarri Fishermen Cooperative Society was
recommended. He has also referred to the order dt.07.12.2020 of this
Court in W.P.No.21679 of 2020 filed by the petitioner society, wherein
the 3rd respondent therein was directed to consider the representations of
the petitioner society and take action in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
5. It is noticed that the former President of the Fishermen
Cooperative Society, Suryapet had submitted a revision petition under
Section 77 of the Act of 1964 dt.16.10.2018 in respect of which, a notice
dt.25.02.2019 was issued and the report of the Fishermen Cooperative
Society, Pillalamarri, Suryapet District dt.25.03.2019 was also
considered and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had observed that
Pillalamarri Fisheries Cooperative Society was formed without
considering the present situation and therefore, the District Fisheries
Officer, Suryapet was directed to form the Pillalamarri Fisheries
Cooperative Society as per the provisions of the Act of 1964 and that the
process shall be finished within a period of 45 days from the date of the
order and submit the proposals and Suryapet Working Committee was
directed to cooperate as per the rules of the cooperative society. In the
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
impugned order, it was observed that Pillalamarri Village is in the limits
of Suryapet Fisheries Cooperative Society and that there are six
members from that village who are members of the Suryapet Fisheries
Cooperative Society and therefore, the society water bodies are part of
Suryapet Fisheries Cooperative Society and the bifurcation has to be in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1964.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner society
submitted that the registration of the society was done by the Registrar
of the Cooperative Societies and therefore, he cannot also be the
revising authority. The revision ought to have been done by the
Government and not by the Registrar himself and therefore, the revision
order itself is not maintainable. In support of his contentions that the
certificate of registration dt.09.04.2018 issued by the District Fisheries
Officer/Ex-Officio Deputy Rgistrar of Fishermen Co-operative
Societies, Suryapet is under the delegated power of the Registrar and
therefore, it has to be considered as issued by the Registrar, he placed
reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Alok
Kalia Vs. Charu Agrawal1.
FAO (OS) 48/2023, CM APPL. 18126/2023 dt.27.09.2024
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
7. As regards the contention that Pillalamarri Village is a free village
and therefore, no bifurcation of the society from Suryapet Fisheries
Cooperative Society is required, he placed reliance upon the counter
affidavits filed by the DFO in W.P.No.41947 of 2017 and W.P.No.6725
of 2018. It is submitted that the DFO, after following the due process of
law as per G.O.Ms.No.6 dt.24.03.2016, has formed the petitioner society
and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. He submitted that
the society was registered by the Commissioner of Fisheries/Ex-officio
Registrar and therefore, he lacks jurisdiction to revise his own order
though such a power is exercised under delegated powers of the
Government under Section 3 of the Act of 1964 by the Sub-Registrar-
cum-DFO on the principles of agency. He placed reliance upon the the
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Alok Kalia Vs. Charu
Agrawal (1 supra). He further submitted that the power may not be
exercised under Section 77 in the event of an appeal remedy available
under Section 76(1) of the Act of 1964 and therefore, the 4th respondent
ought to have filed an appeal under Section 76(1) of the Act of 1964.
8. Thirdly, it is submitted that any decree or order passed without
jurisdiction is a nullity and that invalidity could be set up whenever and
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan 2. It is
further submitted that the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet has
deliberately not filed the certificate of incorporation and filed copy of
only their bye-laws reflecting Suryapet Taluk consisting of 18 villages
under its area of operation and Pillalamarri was shown as part village
and therefore, the order passed by the Ex-officio Registrar is not
sustainable.
9. The 3rd respondent, the District Fisheries Officer, has filed a
counter affidavit stating that there are no details of the villages under its
operation mentioned in the bye-laws of the Fishermen Cooperative
Society, Suryapet and the mention was only Suryapet Taluk and on the
basis of the same, the 3rd respondent has declared Pillalamarri as a free
village and sent proposals to the 2nd respondent for formation of a new
society at Pillalamarri Village and accordingly, the 2nd respondent
permitted formation of the society consisting of Pillalamarri fishermen.
It is further submitted that Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet was
1954 AIR Supreme Court 340
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
formed in the year 1958 and Suryapet Taluk was the area of operation as
mentioned in the bye-laws and 6 members from Pillalamarri were also
part of the society as per the records of the society and therefore, the
tanks/water bodies in Pillalamarri Village are also part of Fishermen
Cooperative Society, Suryapet and hence, the revision petition filed by
the 5th respondent society has been allowed.
10. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries reiterated above
submissions.
11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the registration of the petitioner society vide
proceedings dt.09.04.2018 is after following due procedure, i.e., after
obtaining viability report and also after conducting the skill test. The
certificate of registration is issued by the District Fisheries Officer/Ex-
Officio Deputy Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies,
Suryapet. Section 6 of the Act of 1964 provides for the procedure for
registration of a Co-operative Society and Section 8 provides that the
Registrar shall issue a certificate of registration signed and sealed by
him. In this case, it appears that the Deputy Registrar of Fishermen Co-
operative Societies has issued the certificate of registration under
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
delegated powers. Therefore, the certificate has to be deemed to have
been issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies only. In the case
of Alok Kalia Vs. Charu Agrawal (1 supra), the Division Bench of
Delhi High Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Rajul
Gupta Vs. Pratap Singh and another 3, wherein it was observed thus:
"22. As an ordinary rule, delegation of powers or functions by an
authority or a person to another authority does not imply that the said
principal authority is completely denuded of its power. This is so,
because the delegate in exercise of the delegated powers acts as a
principal. Thus, while the delegate can exercise the power, the
principal too can exercise the same power unless there is any specific
statutory provision which bars the same. The Supreme Court in the
case of Godawari S. Parulekar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC
1404 also expressed a similar view and cited the following passage,
from Huth v. Clarke: 25 Q.B.D. 391, with approval:--
"Delegation, as the word is generally used, does not imply a parting
with powers by the person who grants the delegation, but points
rather to the conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise
that person would have to do himself." "
Therefore, even though the certificate of registration is issued by the
Deputy Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies, Suryapet
(2013:DHC:6070-DB)
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
dt.09.04.2018, it has to be held to have been issued by the Registrar
only.
12. The next question to be considered is whether the registration
certificate can be challenged under Section 76 of the Act of 1964. This
Court finds that only the procedure to be followed under Section 6 of the
Act of 1964 is appealable under Section 76 of the Act of 1964. Section 8
is not provided as appealable under Section 76 of the Act of 1964.
Therefore, the only option available to an aggrieved party by the
certificate of registration, is to file a Revision before the Government.
Section 77 of the Act of 1964 reads as under:-
"77. (1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on
application made to him, call for and examine the record of any other
subordinate to him and the Government may of their own motion or
on application made to them, call for and examine the record of the
Registrar, in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding in
respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by sub
section(1) of section 76 to satisfy himself or themselves as to the
regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality or propriety
of any decision passed or order made therein; and, if, in any case, it
appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or
order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for
reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly:
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
Provided that every application to the Registrar or the
Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be
preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceeding,
decision or order to which the application relates was communicated
to the applicant.
(2) No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under
sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of
making his representation.
(3) The Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, may
suspend the decision or order pending the exercise of his or their
power under sub-section (1) in respect thereof.
(4) The Registrar or the Government may award costs in
proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the funds of the
society or by such party to the application for revision as the
Registrar or the Government may deem fit.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, the expression
'Registrar' means the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State
appointed as such under sub-section (1) of section 3."
It goes to show that power of revision is vested both with the Registrar
as well as the Government to exercise the power either suo motu or on
an application; and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of
any officer subordinate to him and the Government may call for and
examine the record of the Registrar. In this case, the order of revision
dt.29.03.2019 has been passed by the Ex-Officio Registrar of Co-
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
operative Society/Fisheries Commissioner, Government of Telangana.
Therefore, the very same authority who has issued the certificate of
registration has passed the order of revision which clearly is not
maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh
Vs. Chaman Paswan (2 supra) has held as under:
"6. The answer to these contentions must depend on what the
position in law is when a Court entertain a suit or an appeal over
which it has no jurisdiction and what the effect of Section 11 of the
Suit Valuation Act is on that position. It is a fundamental principle
well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction
is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and
wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage
of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of
jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether, it is in
respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority
of the Court to pose any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured
even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration
fell to be determined only on the application of general principles
governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of
Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree
would be nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 1 of the
Suits Valucation Act on this position."
Therefore, the question of jurisdiction can be raised before this Court,
even if it was not raised before the Registrar while he was passing the
order under Section 77 of the Act of 1964.
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
13. Further, even on merits, this Court finds that the stand of the
Department from the beginning was that Pillalamarri is a free village
and the basis for such a stand has been that while issuing the certificate
of registration to Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet, the names
of the water bodies or the villages of the water bodies have not been
mentioned therein. Though it is a fact that 6 villagers from Pillalamarri
were also members of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet, it is
not in dispute that the requests of the other villagers from Pillalamarri
have never been considered for membership in Fishermen Cooperative
Society, Suryapet. Since the stand of the Department all along was that
Pillalamarri village is a free village, but it has changed its stand
subsequently, this Court is of the opinion that unless it is specifically
mentioned in the bye-laws of the certificate of registration, it cannot be
held to be part of Suryapet Fishermen Cooperative Society. The learned
counsel for the 5th respondent has relied upon the Audit report of the 5th
respondent society for the Assessment Year 2008-09, wherein the area
of operation of the society is mentioned as Suryapet, Rayanigudem and
Pillalamarri. Even if the same were to be taken into consideration, it
cannot be said that Pillalamarri was part of Suryapet. Therefore, there
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
was no requirement for bifurcation of the Fishermen Cooperative
Society, Suryapet to form a separate society, i.e., Fishermen Cooperative
Society of Pillalamarri. In view thereof, the revision order dt.29.03.2019
is set aside and the petitioner society shall be considered to be in
existence from the date of its registration, i.e., 09.04.2018.
14. W.P.No.6035 of 2021 is accordingly allowed.
15. W.P.No.10852 of 2023 has been filed by the Fishermen Co-
operative Society, Suryapet and others challenging the proceedings of
the District Fisheries Officer/Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), Suryapet dt.19.12.2022 registering the
amendment to the Bye-law No.1 (area of operation) of Fishermen
Cooperative Society, Suryapet under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964
without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 15-A of
the Act of 1964, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
16. This Court finds that pursuant to the revision order dt.29.03.2019
holding that Pillalamarri Fishermen Cooperative Society was formed
without deleting Pillalamarri village from the Fishermen Cooperative
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
Society, Suryapet and without following the procedure under the Act of
1964 which is the subject matter of W.P.No.6035 of 2021, the District
Fisheries Officer, Suryapet has passed the order under Section 16(5) of
the Act of 1964 amending the Bye-law No.1 of the society and reducing
the area of operation of Suryapet, Rayanigudem and Pillalamarri
Villages by deleting Pillalamarri Village from its area of operation.
Challenging the same, W.P.No.10852 of 2023 has been filed.
17. While the learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the
submissions made in the writ affidavit, respondents 4 to 37 have filed
their counter affidavit stating that Pillalamarri Village is a free village
and did not require bifurcation. However, pursuant to the revision order
dt.29.03.2029 under Section 77 of the Act of 1964, the amendment of
Bye-law has been made. The learned counsel for the unofficial
respondents further submitted that there is a provision of appeal under
Section 76 of the Act of 1964 to the Tribunal against the order passed
under Section 16 and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, i.e., the
District Fisheries Officer also supported the contentions raised by the
unofficial respondents.
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
18. Having regard to the fact that W.P.No.6035 of 2021 has been
allowed, this Court is of the opinion that the consequential amendment
of Bye-law pursuant to the revision order dt.29.03.2019 is not necessary
and even otherwise, the amendment under Section 16(5) is appealable to
the Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act of 1964. Therefore,
W.P.No.10852 of 2023 is dismissed with liberty to the writ petitioners
to challenge the impugned proceedings dt.19.12.2022 under Section 16
of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, if required.
19. W.P.No.8247 of 2025 is filed by the Fishermen Cooperative
Society, Suryapet seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter
dt.12.03.2025 issued by the 4th respondent issuing leasehold rights for
conducting fishing operations in respect of Shobha Samudram tank
situated at Pillalamarri, Suryapet in favour of the 5th respondent, which,
according to them, is a non-existing entity under law and as arbitrary,
illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and
to direct the 4th respondent to issue lease hold rights to the petitioner in
respect of Shobha Samudram tank situated at Pillalamarri, Suryapet and
to pass such other order or orders.
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
20. This Court, vide interim orders dt.18.03.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025,
has directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the order
and that the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent shall not have any
fishing rights over the subject water body till the next date of hearing
and the interim order has been extended from time to time.
21. In view of the allowing of W.P.No.6035 of 2021 and that the
Fishermen Cooperative Society, Pillalamarri is to be considered to be in
existence from the date of its registration, the interim order stands
vacated and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
22. W.P.No.8247 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed.
23. W.P.No.12409 of 2025 is filed by Fishermen Cooperative
Society, Suryapet to consider their representations dt.11.04.2025 and
15.04.2025 for grant of leasehold rights for conducting fishing
operations in respect of Shobha Samudram tank in favour of Fishermen
Cooperative Society, Suryapet.
W.P.Nos.6035 of 2021, 10852 of 2023,
8247 of 2025 and 12409 of 2025
24. In view of the finding of this Court in W.P.No.6035 of 2021, this
Writ Petition is also not maintainable. W.P.No.12409 of 2025 is
accordingly dismissed.
25. In the result,--
(i) W.P.No.6035 of 2021 is allowed.
(ii) W.P.No.10852 of 2023 is dismissed with liberty.
(iii) W.P.No.8247 of 2025 is dismissed
(iv) W.P.No.12409 of 2025 is dismissed.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs in all these Writ Petitions.
(vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in all the Writ
Petitions including I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 in W.P.No.8247
of 2025 shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 02.05.2025
Svv
