IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 18372 OF 2016

Between:

M.L.Kumar Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy, age about 48 years Superintendent and President Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Non-Teching Employees Central Association, Lam Farm, Guntur, R/o Pandurangapuram, Nagaralu 1st lane, Amaravathi Road, Guntur, Guntur District. Occ;

...PETITIONER

AND

• 1. The Registrar, Administrative Office, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Reddipalem, Admn.Camp Office, Vijaya Durga Towers, M.G.Inner Ring Road, Guntur - 522509.
• 2. The Joint Registrar cum Returning Officer, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Admn.Camp Office, Vijaya Durga Towers, M.G.Inner Ring Road, Guntur - 522509.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the' 2nd respondent in issuing the election Notification vide Lr. No.003760/Election/2016 on 08-06-2016 ignoring the Rules & Regulations contemplated in the Bye Laws of the Petitioner Association, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice apart from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 & 19 of Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same, in the interest of justice.

I.A. NO! ¹ OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 22566 OF 2016)

Petition under 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the election Notification vide Lr.No.003760/Election/2016, on 08-06-2016 issued by the 2""^ respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice

I.A. NO: ² OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 23442 OF 2016)

Petition under 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 implead the petitioners herein as party Respondent nos. 3 to 8 in the above W.P.No. 18372 of 2016 for proper adjudication of the case, in the interest of justice

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC

FOR ANGRAU)

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010657532016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333]

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO; 18372/2016

Between:

...PETITIONER M.l.kumar Reddy

AND

...RESPONDENT(S) The Registrar Administrative Office and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

l.M VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

l.YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR ANGRAU)

2.7396/RAMIDI SATHYANARAYANA

3.YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR ANGRAU)

The Court made the following:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief;-

"....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent the election Notification Lr.No.003760/Election/2016 on 08.06.2016, ignoring the Rules & Regulations contemplated in the Bye Laws of the Petitioner Association, as illegal, arbitrary and violation ofprinciples of natural justice apart from the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 & 19 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same " in issuing vide

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Notification dated 08.06.2016, which was issued for conducting general elections to Non-Teaching Employees Association with Registration No.28 of 2015. But, this Court was not inclined to grant any interim order on 14.06.2016 on the ground that the petitioner is under the mistaken impression that the notification was issued in respect of ANGRAU Non teaching Employees Association with Registration No.6542 of 1999. When the petitioner is not even a member of the Association, he has no locus standi to question the elections that are proposed to be conducted to the Association with Registration No.28 of 2015.

3. A person must have locus standi to file a writ as being personally affected by the impugned order or invasion of his /her fundamental rights. This principle was reiterated in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra^ and is being extracted below;

is evident that under ordinary with the case at hand, "Thus, from the above it circumstances, a third person, having no concern cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance as referred to whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and ^a person. relation to which, he can who has no personal agenda, or object, in grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo moto, in such respect. examine

who is According to the doctrine of locus standi, ^a person cannot be allowed to interfere in the writ petition, but, only a person whose 4. stranger to a disputed matter judicial proceedings through legal right has been violated, that is the aggrieved person against whom a a decision has been pronounced, is allowed to bring an action in the Court. But, in the present case, the impugned Notification dated 08.06.2016 issued for conducting general elections to Non-Teaching Employees Association with Registration No.28 of 2015, of which the petitioner member, which clearly indicates that the petitioner was herein is not even a lacks locus standi.

of the above, this Court finds no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view

(2013) 4 see 465

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

SD/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

To,

%

1. One CC to SRI M.VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD, Advocate [OPUC]

² One CC to SRI YELLA REDDY RAJANALA (SC FOR ANGRAU) Advocate [OPUC] ^t

3. Two C.D Copies MBT

DATED:26/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.18372 of 2016

DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS