Allowed

K.Hanumantha Rao, v. The District Cooperatvie Officer, Machilipatnam

Telangana HC17 Nov 2008WP/7270/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the disqualification of a cooperative society member as a director. The court held that since the petitioner received the show cause notice late, he was denied an opportunity to submit an explanation within the fixed time, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 25.02.2008 and grant two weeks to submit explanation to the notice dated 08.02.2008.

K.Hanumantha Rao, Vs The District Cooperatvie… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7270 of 2008

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner was elected as one of the Directors of the Managing Committee of Sri Vijayalaxmi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Gopavaram, 3^rd respondent herein. The president of the society issued show cause notice, dated 08.02.2008, to the petitioner, alleging that he failed to attend the meetings of the managing committee on 31.03.2007, 11.05.2007, 01.06.2007, 04.07.2007, 08.08.2007 and 03.11.2007 and that the managing committee has resolved to seek his explanation, as to why he shall not be declared as disqualified. The petitioner states that he did not receive the show cause notice and this was followed by an order, dated 25.02.2008, through which the managing committee declared that he ceased to be a Member of the committee. The petitioner got issued a notice to the society and the Secretary gave a reply, dated 27.03.2008 denying the allegations. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in disqualifying him.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, and the learned counsel for respondent No.3

¶5

Section 21-B of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act directs cessation of membership, in case a member of the committee fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the committee. However, even after such cessation, he can be reinstated. The Section is silent as to the authority, that is competent to declare that a member has ceased to hold his office, or the procedure to be followed therefor. This Court would have considered the feasibility of undertaking further discussion on this aspect, but for the fact that there is a strong ground that militates against the respondents, in the context of disqualification of the petitioner. The show cause notice, dated 08.02.2008, was received by the petitioner only on 28.02.2008. In that view of the matter, the petitioner did not have an occasion to submit his explanation within time. The final order, dated 25.02.2008 was passed on the assumption that the petitioner failed to submit explanation.

¶6

On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 25.02.2008 is set aside. The petitioner is granted two (2) weeks’ time from today to submit explanation to the show cause notice, dated 08.02.2008. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶7

_________ 17.11.2008

¶8

JSU

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶10

Writ Petition No.7270 of 2008

¶11

Date: 17.11.2008

¶12

JSU

K.Hanumantha Rao, v. The District Cooperatvie Officer, Machilipatnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Hanumantha Rao, v. The District Cooperatvie Officer, Machilipatnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Venkatesham, Vs The Panchayat Secretary

P.Srinivasa Reddy, Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Sherla Ramulu, Vs The National Highways Authority of India

Gunduboyina Raghuvulu, Vs The District Collector

K.Venkata Raju Vs The District Level Sand Committee, represented by its

Kandula Narasimha Rao Vs Madasu Upender rao