Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dasari Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Ap on 6 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.13829, 23152, 13841, 14124, 14126, 14131,
14134, 14136, 14138, 15186, 15189, 17577,
17579, 17582, 20253 AND 20264 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
The present Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and since the issue in all the Writ Petitions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The batch of Writ Petitions are filed to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the inquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, „the Act 1964‟) by the respondent No.8, i.e., Inquiry Officer/Assistant Registrar, Office of the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, in the affairs of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, and the consequential proceedings Rc.No.706/2022-C dated 05.06.2023, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, „the Act 1964‟), and also in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and, consequently, prayed to set aside the 2 instructions given by the respondent No.4 to the respondents 5 and 6 to initiate criminal, civil and disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. CONTENTS OF INQUIRY REPORT:
3. An enquiry under Section 51 of the Act 1964 was conducted into the affairs of Reddypalem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society and other Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies. As seen from the impugned order dated 31.05.2023, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Divisional Cooperative Officer, who conducted periodical inspection of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS) for the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2021, and observed that fake loans were granted and submitted preliminary report stating that they have identified certain irregular loans issued by the petitioners and recommended for inquiry under Section 51 of the Act 1964.
4. Accordingly, the 4th respondent-District Cooperative Officer, Guntur, ordered an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act 1964 into the affairs of the Reddypalem PACS and other PACSs.
5. As seen from the inquiry report, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition that it conveys or transpires or communicate that the Chief Executive Officer of the Society recorded in the minutes that the 3 petitioners herein have granted membership, as if the meeting was conducted for issuance of the membership and on the same day, loans were granted to the said members and the committee members have not signed on the minutes, but at the same time, the three member Managing Committee signed on the loan filed which are quite irregular. And out of granting loans to 55 members, only 50 members taken CC & KCC to a tune of Rs.2,99,00,000/- leaving 5 fake members as balance and the said loans were granted contrary to the circulars issued by the Administrative Office, while sanctioning loans without identifying the members by way of field inspection by the Manager, Supervisor and Chief Executive Officer of the Society and after conducting the field inspection, a certificate shall be appended to the loan file, then only the petitioners have to sanction the loan amount and the same was deviated by the Managers, Supervisors and Chief Executive Officer.
6. It is also asserted in the inquiry report that the bank officials also opened the SB accounts to the fake members without verifying the Aadhar and PAN cards which resulted the misappropriation of funds towards benami loans. More so, the Bank Managers as well as Supervisors, CEOs have not followed the cash credit circulars issued by the Administrative Office and the Inquiry Officer also opined that if the 4 bank officials followed the circular issued by the Administrative Office, they can also stop payments, but in this aspect, they were colluded with the delinquents.
7. In this connection, the revenue officials are also mainly colluded with the fake members for exhibiting and uploading fake mutations with RSR does not follow the guidelines of the Chief Commissioner of the Land Administration in which CCLA‟s Circular No.LR.II/ROR2/7128/ 2016 dated and G.O.Ms.No.271 of Revenue Department dated 01.07.2016, where the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued to all the Tahsildars and District Collectors and all the connected persons those who are authorized to conduct mutations in connection with the sale, gift, partition, etc. And out of 50 cases of benami loans, 45 cases were relating to Machavaram Mandal and the rest of 5 cases relating to Bellamkonda Mandal uploading directly the names of fake members into the web land without having survey numbers and extent and the dates of uploading and deletion, if any, those who caused for the above lapses.
8. The Inquiry Officer also reported that in connection with the Sub Registrar‟s Office, out of 50 fake members, the mortgage registration was done in favour of the fake members only 40 members and SROs 5 found the said survey numbers in the web land at that time, but in respect of 10 fake loans, Piduguralla Sub-Registrar informed that the mortgage registrations as well as encumbrance certificates were registered in favour of fake lonees and found to be fake mortgaged bonds and fake encumbrance certificates.
9. Basing upon the inquiry report, the Joint Registrar, District Cooperative Officer, vide proceedings in Rc.No.706/2022-C dated 05.06.2023, has directed to initiate civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners herein.
CONTENTIONS OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS AS PER THE AFFIDAVIT:
10. Assailing the said inquiry report dated 31.05.2023 under Section 51 of the Act 1964 and the proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 05.06.2023, directing to initiate civil, criminal and disciplinary action against the petitioners, the present Writ Petition are filed on the ground that the petitioners are not the employees of the respective PACSs and the petitioners are not responsible for the loss caused to the said societies and the petitioner did not violate any rules in force and the 4 th respondent-District Cooperative Officer has no power or authority or jurisdiction to give instructions to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative 6 Societies and Divisional Cooperative Officer, who is arrayed as 5th respondent, and the Chief Executive Officer, Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, who is arrayed as 6th respondent, to initiate civil, criminal and disciplinary action against the petitioners and the finding of the inquiry officer that the bank officials colluded with the Management, Chief Executive Officer of the respective societies is false and baseless and the finding of inquiry officer that the petitioner is not able to technically check-up Aadhar and PAN cards is nothing but violation of circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and the petitioner has not preferred to check-up in the nearest mee-seva kendram is misconceived, unreasonable and based on no evidence.
11. And further contended that in fact, e-KYC is not available with the bank and there is no circular in force which imposes an obligation on the Manager to conduct field inspection of the agricultural land which is mortgaged to PACS before disbursing the amount, which has been sanctioned and granted by the concerned PACS in favour of the members and there is no obligation cast upon the officials of the bank for physical verification of the land which was mortgaged in favour of the respective societies for the loan granted by the PACS and the surcharge proceedings issued against the employees of the bank in 7 pursuant to the report submitted by the inquiry officer under Section 51 of the Act 1964 is without jurisdiction, as per the orders in W.P.Nos.22815, 22828 and 228209 of 2009 of the common High Court and the conjoint reading of relief of Sections 59 and 60 of the Act 1964 makes it clear that the surcharge proceedings cannot be taken against non-employees, non-office bearers or non-members of the society and the action taken against the employees of the bank or held to be without jurisdiction. In order to attract Section 60 of the Act 1964, there must be a loss caused to the bank and the loss caused go the society cannot be a cause of action for proceeding against the employees of the bank.
12. Though the employees of the bank are connected with the process of sanctioning loans and the bank itself is a society, no action can be taken against the employee of the another society „Bank‟ in respect of irregularities committed in a society. Managers of the respective branches have verified the title deeds, passbooks, 1-B, E.C., Adangal and also the mortgage deed executed by the member of the society in favour of the society and then only the loans were disbursed.
The allegation against the petitioner and other persons who obtained loans from the PACSs have colluded with the CEOs and Managing Committees of the respective PACSs is false, baseless and 8 misconceived. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned enquiry under Section 51 of the Act 1964 dated 31.05.2023 and the consequential order for initiating civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings dated 05.06.2023.
13. To substantiate their contentions raised in the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions, relied on the following judgments:
(1) K.Satyanarayana and others v. A.P. Co-operative Tribunal Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam and others1, for the proposition that though the employees of the bank are connected in the process of sanction of the loans and the bank itself is a society, no action can be taken against the employees of another Society, "Bank" in respect of the irregularities committed in a Society.
(2) Dr. V.K. John v. G.Vasantha Pai and another2, to explain the meaning of "Circular".
(3) Co-operative Marketing Society, Anakapalle v. Pentakotla Sriramulu3, for the proposition that in order to attract its applicability, it is necessary that either an audit under Section 37 or an inquiry under Section 38 or an inspection under 1 2018 (1) ALD 555 2 AIR 1957 Madras 320 3 1960 (1) ALT 102 (D.B.) 9 Section 39 should disclose that persons in management have misappropriated funds, then only the persons concerned would be surcharged under this Section.
(4) S.Balappa v. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad and others4, for the proposition that to bring a case within the scope of Section 60, it should appear that any person who has taken part in the management of the society or any past or present officer of the society has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or has been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society and it must also appear in the course of the audit or enquiry or in an inspection or on the winding up of a society, the said amount had fallen due to be recovered from the concerned person.
CONTENTIONS OF GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5 AS PER THE COUNTER:
14. Repelling the contentions raised by the writ petitioners, respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5, through the learned Government Pleader, filed their counter and stated that the Chief Executive Officers of the respective PACSs had issued irregular loans to the persons who are not holding agricultural land in the area of operation of the PACSs by violating bye-law No.6 of the society and Section 19 of the Act 1964, as 4 2005 (2) ALT 137 (S.B.) 10 such, an inquiry was ordered under Section 51 of the Act 1964 into the affairs of the PACS to conduct a detailed inquiry and to fix-up the responsibility.
15. The 5th respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Divisional Cooperative Officer recommended to order an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act 1964 basing on the findings of the Inspection Officer/Senior Inspector, Periodical Inspection Officer, Office of the Sub Divisional Cooperative Officer, Guntur, the Chief Executive Officer, Perecherla PACS Limited, the four members had sanctioned eight benami KCC and CC loans for Rs.18,00,000/-, the Manager and Supervisor opened SB accounts in the branch concerned in favour of the fake borrowers without following the KYC norms and without insisting about the evidence produced, i.e., Aadhar and PAN cards) is quite irregular. And the petitioners have not acted as per the guidelines/ circular instructions issued by the GDCC Bank Limited, Guntur, for sanction and disbursement of loans.
16. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that Circular No.BKG/KYC/F.No.269/2021-22 dated 03.12.2021 on the KYC Guidelines is issued to protect the financial system against threat of money laundering/terror financing and frauds. Circular instructions in 11 ADM.F.No.1111/2019-20 dated 31.05.2019 point No.8 says that "in case of disbursement of loans to new members, supervisor has to visit the residence of the member and assess his capacity to repay the loan amount, then only he has to recommend for sanction of the loan. Further in case of sanction loan more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the Branch Supervisor, Branch Manager has to conduct field inspection along with the Chief Executive Officer of the Society."
17. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he has not violated the prevailing guidelines in disbursement of loans and the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the bank officials colluded with the Management, Chief Executive Officer of the respective societies is false and baseless is not correct.
18. And it is also stated that as per the G.O.Ms.No.34, Food and Agriculture (Coop.IV) dated 16.01.1989, the appointment of the Inquiry Officer under Section 51 of the Act 1964 in respect of PACS has been delegated to the District Cooperative Officer. Accordingly, he District Cooperative Officer, Guntur ordered inquiry under Section 51 of the Act 1964 into the affairs of the Reddypalem PACS and Perecherla through proceeding Rc.No.704/2022-C, dated 16.03.2022 and Rc.No.706/2022- 12 C dated 16.03.2022 respectively on the recommendations of the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Guntur.
19. It is also stated that there are similar misappropriation cases including this, in 17 PACSs have been happened and inquiries under Section 51 of the Act 1964 were conducted and inquiry reports submitted by the Inquiry Officer revealed that sanctioned and disbursed for an amount of Rs10.68 crores of benami loans to 184 fake members by opening SB accounts in branches by 25 bank employees. Hence, prayed to dismiss all the Writ Petitions.
20. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 relied on the following judgments:
(1) L.N.Peta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Societies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others5, for the proposition that the Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not prevent an inquiry intended to be held for unearthing fraud, if any, allegedly committed in disbursement of pubic money and the same cannot be allowed to be kept based on technicalities. 5
(3) Order of this Court in W.P.No.40847 of 2015 dated 28.08.2024.
CONTENTIONS OF 6TH RESPONDENT BANK AS PER THE COUNTER:
21. The 6th respondent filed counter through their counsel Ms. K.N.Vijaya Lakshmi, and relied on the circular ADM.F.No.1111/ 2019-20 dated 31.05.2019. Clause-8 of the circular that communicate/transmit that without allotment from administrative office, the PACS should not disburse loans to new members or enhance the loan amount to existing borrowers. Without special permission from administrative office, the PACS should not disburse loan amount above Rs.1,00,000/- to new members. While disbursing loans to new members, the Supervisor should visit the residence of the applicant and scrutinize the loan repayment capacity of the applicant, only then the Supervisor should recommend the sanctioning of the loan. And while disbursing loan amount above Rs.1,00,000/- the Branch Supervisor and Manager should conduct field inspection along with CEO of the PACS. 6
2007 (5) ALD 698 14 The same should be kept in loan file. The PACS should not change more than 7% on these loans.
22. It is also stated that it is the duty of the sanctioning authority, i.e., the Manager, Supervisor & CEOs to verify the KYC (know your customer) of the proposed loanee/borrower and to verify the revenue records of the proposed agricultural land offered to be mortgaged to the PACS namely, Adangal, ROR-1B, Pattadar Passbook-cum-Title deeds in the title of the proposed loanee/borrower and also to verify the Encumbrance Certificate to find whether any third party interests created over the proposed agricultural land offered to be mortgaged to the PACS as security towards the proposed loan amount to be sanctioned and also to physically visit the proposed agricultural land offered as security and record a field inspection report verifying the actual land in parity with the submitted revenue records namely Adangal, ROR-1B, Pattadar Passbook-cum-Title deeds and the same shall be maintained and filed in the bank records along with the SAO loan application before disbursement of any loan amount to the borrower.
23. It is also stated that none of the conditions stated supra have not been followed by the petitioner, as such, the respondents passed the 15 impugned order in Rc.No.704/2022-C dated 31.05.2023 and Rc.No.706/2022-C dated 05.06.2023 was right and appropriate as the employees vested with the duties of field inspection and sanctioning authority were negligent and committed dereliction of their individual respective duties which caused misappropriation to the funds of the bank.
24. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent relied on judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C.Kakkar7, for the proposition that a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere and acting beyond one‟s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
CONSIDERATION OF BOTH PARTIES BRIEFLY:
25. Heard Sri Prabhu Nath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Ramakrishna Naik, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and Ms.K.N. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 7 (2003) 4 SCC 364 16
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the primary responsibility for the irregularities committed in the affairs of the society rests on the office bearers of the society and the employees working herein. Though the employees of the bank are connected in the process of sanction of the loans and the bank itself is a society, no action can be taken against the employees of another society, "Bank" in respect of the irregularities committed in a society. In any event, the joint and several liability cannot be mulcted on the petitioners.
27. On the touchstone of the aforesaid principle which was laid in K.SSatyanarayana's case (1 supra), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that if at all, the responsibility is only on the society not on the bank, though the employees of the bank are connected with and the bank itself is a society, no action can be taken against the employees of the another society. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners voiced that it is a fit case to allow all the Writ Petitions and set aside the impugned proceedings dated 31.05.2023 and 05.06.2023.
28. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the circular issued by the DCCBs is not a law or a statute or rule and it is not binding and there is no need to follow the circular and also stated 17 that the circular was not circulated to the respective PACSs and not following the circular is not a ground to conduct an inquiry or for initiating civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners herein. And also contended that there is no such willful negligence on the part of the petitioners in disbursing the loan amount and also stated that the e-KYC is not available with the bank and no circular in force which imposes an obligation on the Manager to conduct field inspection of the agricultural land which is mortgaged to PACS before disbursing the amount, as such, the petitioner did not commit any misconduct and therefore the petitioners are not liable to any civil, criminal or disciplinary action. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Petitions by setting aside the impugned enquiry dated 31.05.2023 and the consequential initiation of civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings dated 05.06.2023.
29. The respondents would submit that the petitioners have not conducted inquiry as contemplated under the circular and they have not conducted field inspection before granting loans, as the amount is more than Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioners have entered benami members into the society as per the information furnished by Piduguralla Sub Registrar Office and the mortgage registrations as well as encumbrance 18 certificates are not registered in favour of the fake loanees and found to be fake encumbrance certificates and the petitioners have not followed the cash credit circulars issued by the administrative office, if they would have been followed the circulars issued by the administrative office, ,they can prevent the payments or stop the payments. As they were colluded, they have not followed the circular issued by the administrative office, on seeing these allegations, the judgments relied on by the petitioners are not applicable to the present facts of the case, as the society is not responsible for the irregularities committed by the petitioners and the society has not accepted any loan applications. COURT‟S CONCLUSION:
30. The proposition laid in the judgment in K.Satyanarayana's case (1 supra) is that: The bank itself is a society, no action can be taken against the employees of the bank in respect of the irregularities committed in the society. The said proposition is not applicable to the present facts of the case, as the society has not sanctioned or recommended for, any loan and the petitioners herein have deviated the circulars issued and in collusion with the revenue officials have created fake SB accounts and without field inspection, they have disbursed the loan amount. Therefore, on the touchstone of the judgment in 19 K.Satyanarayana‟s case (1 supra), the petitioners cannot agitate to quash the inquiry under Section 51 of the Act 1964 and ordering of civil, criminal and disciplinary action dated 05.06.2023.
31. The judgment of the Madras High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners relating to the circular in Dr. V.K. John v. G.Vasantha Pai and another (2 supra) at paragraph No.5, it is asserted that:
"According to the meaning given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, "circular" is something addressed to a circle of persons and the meaning of "circular letter" or "circular" is given as notice, advertisement etc. reproduced for distribution. Obviously, the material letters were such circular letters printed for distribution among the voters. We therefore accept the finding of fact that the petitioner, Dr. John, was guilty of the illegal practice mentioned in S.125(3) of the Act."
32. On a reference made by a Bench of Three Judges of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ratan Melting And Wire Industries, Calcutta8, a Constitutional Bench in CCE v. Ratan 8 (2005) 3 SCC 57 20 Melting & Wire Industries9, held that: "The circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be given effect and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they respect merely their understanding of the statutory provisions."
33. It is other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that e-KYC is not available in the bank.
34. Applicability of KYC is known as:
a) These Directions shall be called the Reserve Bank of India (Know Your Customer (KYC)) Directions, 2016.
b) These directions shall come into effect on the day they are placed on the official website of the Reserve Bank of India.
Section 2: Applicability:
(a) The provisions of these Directions shall apply to every entity regulated by Reserve Bank of India, more specifically as defined in 3 (b)
(xiv) below, except where specifically mentioned otherwise. 9 (2008) 13 SCC 1 21 Regulated Entities" (REs) means:
All Scheduled Commercial Banks (SCBs)/ Regional Rural Banks (RRBs)/ Local Area Banks (LABs)/ All Primary (Urban) Co-operative Banks (UCBs)/State and Central Co-operative Banks (StCBs / CCBs) and any other entity which has been licenced under Section 22 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which as a group shall be referred as „banks‟ Section 23: Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 16 and as an alternative thereto, in case an individual who desires to open a bank account, banks shall open a „Small Account‟, which entails the following limitations:
(i) the aggregate of all credits in a financial year does not exceed rupees one lakh;
ii) xxx
iii) xxx
35. The purpose and purport of KYC stands for "Know Your Customer." It is a due diligence process financial companies use to verify customer identity and assess and monitor customer risk. KYC ensures customers are who they say they are, and it prevents money laundering, terrorism financing, and more fraudulent activities and schemes. By verifying a customer‟s identity and intentions when the account is opened and then monitoring transaction patterns, financial institutions can more accurately pinpoint suspicious activities. As 22 mandated by the Reserve Bank's guidelines, all banks and financial institutions are required to implement Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures. Financial institutions cannot proceed with transactions if KYC documentation is not available.
36. The Reserve Bank of India has power, to ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under Banking Regulations Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act.
37. Once rules are gazetted and notified shall be deemed to have been made under the said Act and shall continue to be in force unless and until they are superseded by Rules made under the Act, they typically come into effect and are considered legally binding. A government body or authority cannot simply state that the rules are not implemented if they have been officially published. The allegations in the enquiry under Section 51 of Act indicate a preponderance of probability that the petitioners intentionally committed misappropriation of the bank funds.
38. The petitioners knowingly granted loans in collusion, ignoring bank guidelines. Their actions were intentional, not negligent. 23
39. One of the decisions referred to in Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, 28, viz., Smith v. Weber 16 N.W. 2d. 537, 539, 70 S.D. 232, gives the following definition: "Wilfulness'" and 'negligence' are opposites, wilfulness signifying presence of intention, purpose or design and negligence in their absence, arising from inattention, thoughtlessness, or heedlessness, and there is a distinction between negligence characterized by inadvertence-and wilful injury characterized by 'advertence'.
40. Upon examination of the impugned enquiry report, it is evident that the report did not contain any findings indicating that the society directed or recommended the sanction of loans to benami beneficiaries. Rather, it is the petitioners who fraudulently disbursed the loans. Without any evidence of a direction or recommendation from the society, the petitioners cannot reasonably claim that the involvement of bank employees in the loan sanctioning process precludes accountability. The fact that the bank operates as a society does not exempt its employees from liability for irregularities that occur within its operations. The bank, as a society, and its employees, who are petitioners, cannot evade responsibility for any wrongdoing and can still 24 be held accountable for their actions. The petitioners who granted loans fraudulently together and they want to punish society for wrongdoings of the person which is unjust and unfair.
41. In view of the foregoing discussion, the principle laid down in the judgment of the common High Court in K.Satyanarayana's case (1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the society has not recommended or paid the loans to the fake members and the petitioners therein have created bank accounts fraudulently and disbursed the amounts fraudulent without following the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India and DCCB. Hence, this Court found no reasons to allow the Writ Petitions.
42. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 06.11.2024 Note: Issue cc by tomorrow B/o siva 25 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.13829, 23152, 13841, 14124, 14126, 14131, 14134, 14136, 14138, 15186, 15189, 17577, 17579, 17582, 20253 AND 20264 OF 2023 Date: 06.11.2024 siva