Dismissed

The Fishemen Marketing Cooperative Society, v. The Commissioner of Fisheries

Telangana HC7 Aug 2012WA/131/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held, by single-judge writ appeal, that an enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act can be initiated suo motu only on the basis of some factual information or representation brought to the notice of the Registrar. The Court dismissed the appeal, refusing to find illegality or irregularity in the order. The decision reaffirms that suo motu action based on imagin

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed holding the impugned order to be devoid of any illegality or irregularity.

The Fishemen Marketing Cooperative Society… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.131 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 07-08-2012.

¶4

Between:

¶5

THE FISHERMEN MARKETING COOP.SOCIETY MOOSI PROJECT, KETHEPALLI MANDAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SADULA NARSAIAH .. APPELLANT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES MATSYA BHAVAN, SHANTHI NAGAR, VIJAYNAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.131 OF 2012

¶10

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶11

This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 23-01-2012 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in W.P.No.1356 of 2012, which was filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1^st respondentCommissioner of Fisheries vide Proc.No.9728/12/2011 dated 17.12.2011 as bad, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and also offends Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the writ petition holding that initiating enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, in his opinion, the 1^st respondent did not commit any illegality or irregularity but acted well within the powers and it cannot be questioned in the writ petition.

¶12

In the impugned proceedings in the writ petition the 1^st respondent under Section 51 of the Act directed Sri.K.Gurappa, General Manager, A.P.State Fishermen Cooperative Society Federation Limited, Hyderabad to conduct enquiry into the functioning, affairs and financial irregularities with special reference to the allegations pertaining to Moosi Project, Nalgonda District and submit a report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of that order. The challenge thrown before the writ court was that an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act can be initiated either (1) of his motion or (2) on the application of the Society to which the society concerned is affiliated or of not less than one-third of the members of the committee or of

¶13

not less than one-fifth of total number of members of the Society. It was stated by the writ petitioner that in the instant case the proceedings which have been initiated under Section 51 of the Act is not suo motu, but on the basis of a representation filed by the Ex-Chairman of the Society and other members of the Society. It appears that the Officer or a Registrar cannot function even suo motu without having any information from any person with regard to the functioning of the Society which is in question and therefore has sought to be submitted before us that suo motu power of the Registrar cannot be given effect to at that point of time, since it is tried to be urged before us on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that if the Registrar wants to exercise his power suo motu he has to do that without any representation from any quarter.

¶14

In our opinion, such functioning on suo motu cannot be based on imagination, there must be some basis which is to be placed before the Registrar to act suo motu. We can also draw analogy from the fact that when a Court wants to issue a suo motu Contempt Rule, in the said jurisdiction, at that point of time also, it would require that some one should bring to the notice the fact of disobedience of the order so passed by the Court, and then only the Court can issue a suo motu Rule in the matter in question, that too if it finds it necessary. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the word suo motu does not mean that without any information even the enquiry can be done. The word suo motu is based on the facts or information, which comes to the notice of the authority and upon his satisfaction that the enquiry is necessary, then only he can function to act in the matter suo motu. It is to be noted that in this case, the 1^st respondent Commissioner/ Registrar received such information by way of a representation of the Ex-President and other members. Further, while exercising suo motu power, the 1^st respondent did not order only in respect of the allegations made in the representation, but also ordered enquiry into entire functioning, affairs and financial irregularities of the Society.

¶15

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal as tried to be contended before us on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. The order under appeal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶17

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶18

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,

¶19

J )

¶20

Dt: 07-08-2012. TNB

The Fishemen Marketing Cooperative Society, v. The Commissioner of Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Fishemen Marketing Cooperative Society, v. The Commissioner of Fisheries

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

S. Ramesh Vs The Collector

Pittala Ashok Vs National High Way Authority of India., (Ministry of

P. Srinivas Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Prabhaker Sharma Vs The District Collector and Magistrate

Jai Bheem Karmika Sankshema Sangham, Vs Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Dr. T.E. Kasturi