Allowed

I. Satyanarayana S/o Lakshmana Swamy, v. The Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar

Telangana HC24 Feb 2011WP/19637/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging the disqualification of the petitioner as a PACS Director. Setting aside an order passed in violation of natural justice due to the office being closed on a public holiday, the Court awarded costs and vacated interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.09.2007 set aside; costs of Rs.5,000 awarded; interim orders vacated.

I. Satyanarayana S/o Lakshmana Swamy, Vs The Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar — Telangana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.19637 and 20533 of 2007

Date:24.02.2011

Between:

I.Satyanarayana

..... Petitioner

AND

The Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar, Gudivada, Krishna District and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu

¶11

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Cooperation

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

At the interlocutory stage, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

As the subject matter of the dispute in both these writ petitions is common, they are heard and being disposed of together.

¶16

I have heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner was unanimously elected as Director in the elections held on 27.10.2005 for the Kondangi (Gandhi) Primary

¶18

Agricultural Cooperative Society (for short ‘PACS’). By notice dated 30.08.2007, the Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar, Gudivada, Krishna District, directed the petitioner to appear before him on 10.09.2007 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of the Divisional Cooperative Office, Gudivada. The petitioner appeared before the said office and made a request for furnishing him the petition stated to have been submitted by some third parties with reference to which the proceedings were initiated against him. On 10.09.2007, the Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar issued proceedings, wherein it was stated that some members of PACS alleged that the petitioner has got a fourth child born on 31.07.1997 and that in view of the same, he has suffered disqualification of being elected and also for continuing as Director of PACS under Section 21-A (1A) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). Providing this information, the Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar directed the petitioner to appear on 15.09.2007 at 11.00 a.m. before the Divisional Cooperative Office, Gudivada with all relevant information for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. Feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19637 of 2007, which came up before this Court on 14.09.2007. On that day, this Court, while ordering notice before admission and permitting the enquiry to go on, directed that no final order shall be passed pending further orders.

¶19

On 17.09.2007, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudivada, passed an order disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that he had a fourth child born on 31.07.1997. Assailing this order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20533 of 2007. By order dated 28.09.2007, this Court granted interim suspension of the said order, on the strength of which the petitioner is continuing as the Director of PACS.

¶20

At the hearing, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the whole action of the respondents suffers from patent mala fides. He submitted that despite the interim order passed

¶21

by this Court on 14.09.2007 not to pass final orders, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudivada, passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2007 disqualifying the petitioner. He further submitted that the said order suffers from serious violation of principles of natural justice for the reason that a hearing was purported to have been held on 15.09.2007, which was a public holiday on account of Vinayaka Chathurthi and that on the basis of such a hearing, the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 17.09.2007. The learned counsel further submitted that his client has visited the office of the Divisional Cooperative SubRegistrar on 15.09.2007 and that as the office was closed due to public holiday, he had no opportunity to appear before the enquiry officer and that so called enquiry was not held on that day.

¶22

A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.09.2007 shows that the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 10.09.2007 in pursuance of a notice issued on 30.08.2007 and that the enquiry was adjourned to 15.09.2007 to enable the petitioner to offer his explanation and on that day, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry and accordingly the enquiry officer has recommended for disqualifying the petitioner as he failed to offer his explanation.

¶23

Interestingly, in the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudivada in W.P.No.20533 of 2007, it is admitted that on 15.09.2007, which happened to be a public holiday on account of Vinayaka Chathurthi, the office was closed. In the face of this admitted fact, the finding in the impugned order dated 17.09.2007 that the petitioner failed to appear before the enquiry officer on 15.09.2007 cannot be sustained. On the own admission of the Deputy Register, if the office was closed, no enquiry would have been held and therefore the question of the petitioner not attending the enquiry would not arise. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that any further notice was issued to the petitioner fixing another date

¶24

for enquiry before the impugned order dated 17.09.2007 was passed. These admitted facts would clearly fortify the plea of the petitioner that the entire action disqualifying the petitioner suffers from arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power. There is apparent contradiction between the stands taken by the respondents in the impugned order and the counter-affidavit filed by them on the factums of holding enquiry.

¶25

Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.09.2007 cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly set aside.

¶26

These writ petitions are accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), for which the incumbents holding the office of Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar, Gudivada and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudivada at the relevant time are jointly and severally liable. The Registrar Cooperation shall fix the liability on these two officers and recover the same from them.

¶27

As a sequel to disposal of these writ petitions, interim orders dated 14.09.2007 in W.P.No.19637 of 2007 and dated 28.09.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.26557 of 2007 in W.P.No.20533 of 2007 are vacated, and W.P.M.P.No.25305 of 2007 and W.V.M.P.No.1147 of 2008 in W.P.No.19637 of 2007 and W.P.M.P.No.26557 of 2007 and W.V.M.P.No.3217 of 2008 in W.P.No.20533 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶28

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24^th February, 2011 GHN

I. Satyanarayana S/o Lakshmana Swamy, v. The Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I. Satyanarayana S/o Lakshmana Swamy, v. The Divisional Cooperative Sub-Registrar

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

N. Neelavathi Vs The District Collector

Palla Koteswaramma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Chakravarthi Vs Ap.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad

Matta Raji Reddy, Vs The Deputy Registrar

Vadlamudi Venkata Subba Rao Vs The Sub Divisional Cooperative Officer

Ramalingeswara Weavers Co-operative Production and Vs The Chairman, A.P. Co-operative Tribunal