Disposed

Boddeda Prasad v. The Government of Andhra PRadesh

Telangana HC10 Oct 2012WP/31798/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three Writ Petitions concerning the disqualification of a Cooperative Society Chairman for having near relatives as employees. The Court held that a Tahsildar lacked authority to opine on disqualification and a notice was issued under a deleted rule. The Court directed the Society to decide the disqualification issue in a General Body meeting.

What did the court decide?

Letters of the Tahsildar and show-cause notice set aside; Managing Director directed to place issue before General Body within one month for a decision.

Boddeda Prasad Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.28623 of 2012; 31798 and 32904 of 2011

¶2

Dated 1 0 th October, 2012

Between:

P.Paradesi Naidu

…Petitioner

(W.P.No.28623 of 2012)

¶7

and

¶8

The Anakapalli Rural Electrical Cooperative Society Ltd., Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District rep.by its Managing Direcotr and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

(W.P.No.28623 of 2012)

¶11

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Kasa Jaganmoha Reddy

¶12

(W.P.No.28623 of 2012)

¶13

Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Cooperation

¶14

(W.P.No.28623 of 2012)

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

COMMON ORDER:

¶17

These three writ petitions pertain to cognate issues in respect of a common subject matter. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together.

¶18

For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.31798 of 2011.

¶19

The petitioner is the Chairman of the Anakapally Rural Electrical Cooperative Society Limited, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District, respondent No.5, (for short ‘the Society’). Successive preliminary enquiries were held against him on various aspects including the allegation that his two near relatives, namely, Adari Venkataramana and Yellapu Satyanarayana, who are stated to be his brothers-in-law being the husbands of his sisters, are the employees of the Society and thereby, he has incurred disqualification for being

¶20

elected and continued as the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Society. In the preliminary report, dated 31.10.2011, submitted by the Divisional Cooperative Officer to the Joint Registrar, it was stated that the enquiries made by the Tahsildar revealed that the petitioner does not have near relatives as employees in the Society.

¶21

However, on a petition filed by one Adari Venkata Satyanarayana, who impleaded himself as respondent No.7, the Tahsildar, Munagapaka addressed letter, dated 18.11.2011, to respondent No.4 and on the information furnished by respondent No.7, he has opined that Adari Venkataramana and Yellapu Satyanarayana are the brothers-in-law of the petitioners. This constituted the basis for respondent No.4 to issue notice in Rc.No.1521/2011-D, dated 28.11.2011, to the petitioner to show-cause why he shall not be disqualified for being continued as a member of the Managing Committee in terms of Section 21-A(1)(a) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). Feeling aggrieved by this notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31798 of 2011. The petitioner has also filed W.P.No.32904 of 2011 questioning the above-mentioned letter, dated 18.11.2011, of the Tahsildar, Munagapaka, wherein he has stated that the two brothers-in-law of the petitioners have been the employees of the Society.

¶22

One Pudi Paradesi Naidu, who impleaded himself as respondent No.6 in W.P.No.31798 of 2011, filed W.P.No.28623 of 2012 for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the Managing Director of the Society in taking up the issue of cessation of the membership of the petitioner in terms Section 21-A(1)(a) of the Act and Rule 24(3) of the A.P.Cooperative Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’) as illegal and arbitrary.

¶23

The gravamen of the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that his two brothers-in-law i.e., husbands of his sisters, have been the employees of the Society and thereby, he has incurred disqualification under the above-mentioned provisions. As noted above, by his letter,

¶24

dated 18.11.2011, the Tahsildar, Munagapaka has concluded that the said fact is true. The petitioner has questioned this letter on two grounds, namely, (1) that the Tahsildar, Munagapaka has no authority whatsoever to hold an enquiry and give his opinion and (2) that at any rate before coming to his conclusion, he failed to give any notice to the petitioner and make proper enquiry.

¶25

I have carefully gone through the said letter of the Tahsildar the contents of which would reveal that the opinion of the Tahsildar was solely based on some of the statements of the villagers stated to have been recorded by him. He has referred to “certain documentary evidence” in support of his conclusion, but he has not discussed the nature of the said documentary evidence.

¶26

As rightly submitted by Sri S.Satyam Reddy and

¶27

Sri B.Adinarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.31798 and 32904 of 2011 respectively, the Tahsildar has not traced his authority in law to address such letter to respondent No.4. It is not as if as on the previous occasion, the Tahsildar was asked by any of the functionaries of the Cooperative Department to hold an enquiry and submit a report. He has embarked upon the enquiry on a petition filed by respondent No.7 and sent a report to respondent No.4, unsolicited. Besides the fact that the report is based only on some hearsay evidence stated to have been collected by him, it does not deal with the documentary evidence which he claimed to have collected. It is not in dispute that the showcause notice, dated 28.11.2011, issued by respondent No.4 is solely based on the said letter of the Tahsildar. It is conceded that respondent No.4 is not conferred with the power to issue such a showcause notice. It is further conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the power to issue such a show-cause notice adumbrated in Rule 24 of the Rules was deleted by the Amendment Act 22 of 2001.

¶28

A Division Bench of this Court in Vancha Veera Reddy and another v. District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and others^[1] while dealing with the provisions of Section 21A of the Act held that the disqualifications envisaged under Sections 21-A, 21-AA and 21-B of the Act are not automatic and that the same are subject to the decision of the General Body of the Society.

¶29

In the light of the above admitted legal position, the notice, dated 28.11.2011, impugned in W.P.No.31798 of 2011, itself is without jurisdiction and the same is unenforceable. Equally, the letter, dated 18.11.2011, addressed to respondent No.4 is invalid as the same emanated from the Tahsildar, Munagapaka whose power is not traceable to any statutory provision or executive instructions. As noted above, even the conclusions arrived at by him are wholly without any basis. Hence, it needs to be held that the said letter also cannot constitute any basis for determining the disqualification of the petitioner. These two letters are therefore set aside.

¶30

However, the matter would not end with the setting aside of the above-mentioned two letters. Section 21-A(1)(a) of the Act ordains that no person shall be eligible for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the committee, if he has a near relative as a paid employee of the Society or its financing bank as may be prescribed. Section 2(jiv) of the Act has included brother-in-law within the definition of near relative. Thus, if as a fact it is proved that the petitioner’s two brothersin-law or at least one of them are/is working as paid employees/employee of the Society, he will be disqualified to be continued as Chairman. Indeed, W.P.No.28623 of 2012 has been filed by respondent No.6 for a mandamus to direct the Managing Director of the Society to place the matter before the General Body for discussion and decision.

¶31

In the face of these serious allegations raised against the petitioner on his disqualification, it is necessary that the issue is discussed in the General Body meeting and decided. Accordingly, the

¶32

Managing Director of the Society is directed to place the issue as to whether the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 21A(1)(a) of the Act before the General Body of the Society within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. The General Body shall thereupon issue a notice to the petitioner along with the material, if any, on which reliance is sought to be placed, calling for his objections. The petitioner shall file his objections within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notice. Thereafter, the Managing Director shall ensure that the General Body discusses the issue and takes a decision thereon within a period of one month from the date of the petitioner submitting his objections. The petitioner’s continuance or otherwise as the Chairman and Member of the Managing Committee of the Society shall depend upon the decision of the General Body.

¶33

Subject to the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶34

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, the interlocutory applications if any pending shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶35

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10^th October, 2012 VGB

¶36

[1] 2010 (3) ALD 526 (DB)

Boddeda Prasad v. The Government of Andhra PRadesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddeda Prasad v. The Government of Andhra PRadesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pathangi Janaiah, Vs The District Collector

M/s.Trimex Industries Pvt. Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Rtc Telangana Mazdoor Union, Vs A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

B.Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.Timma Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Boddeda Prasad Vs The Tahsildar

Edara Venkata Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary