Dismissed

B. Chandrashaker Reddy, v. The Divisional Co-Operative Officer

Telangana HC2 Dec 2014WP/23435/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the issuance of a no confidence motion notice against him as President of a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that respondents could not be deemed defaulters and thus barred from voting without a formal declaration and published list of defaulters by the Managing Committee.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

B. Chandrashaker Reddy, Vs The Divisional… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.23435 of 2014

¶3

Date: 02-12-2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

B. Chandrasekhar Reddy

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District and 12 others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.23435 of 2014

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing notice of No Confidence Motion on the President of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Sathyanpally vide notice Rc.No.660/2014-D, dated 24-072014 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the same.

¶13

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as President of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Sathyanpally, Khanpur Mandal, Adilabad District and subsequently elected as Vice President, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Adilabad. It is stated that the respondents 4 to 13 moved No Confidence Motion against the petitioner pursuant to which, the 1^st respondent convened a meeting on 16-08-2014 at 11.30 A.M. at the office of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Sathyanpally by issuing proceedings in Rc.No.660/2014-D, dated

¶14

27-04-2014. It is also stated that the respondents 4 to 13 are disqualified under Section 21-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) as they have not paid their respective payments by 28-02-2014 and its due period came to an end by 31-05-2014, and therefore, their right to vote ceased to be in existence by operation of law and consequently, the respondents 4 to 13 have no legitimate right to vote in No Confidence Motion. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

2. The 1^st respondent filed his counter stating that out of 13 members in the Managing Committee, 10 members have issued notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner as per Section 34-A (2) of the Act on 24-07-2014. It is also stated that the petitioner and Chief Executive Officer of the society has given over due certificates to nine members out of ten members, who have moved no confidence motion against the petitioner, duly mentioning the due date for payment as

¶16

28-02-2014 and that as per Section 24 of the Act, Rule amended vide G.O.Ms.No.26 Agrl. & Cooperation (Cooperative), dated 1602-2012 the nine members shall fall under default from 28-02-2014 until then the nine members cannot attract default either under Section 21-A or Section 25 (1-A) of the Act. It is further stated that G.O.Ms.No.34 Food and Agriculture (Coop-IV) Department, dated 18-01-1989 was issued by the Government of A.P. in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 of the Act, pursuant to which, certain powers of the Registrar under the Act were delegated to the officers prescribed in the schedule to the said G.O. Serial No.2 in the schedule to the said G.O. shows that District Cooperative Officers deleted for the words "Special Cadre Deputy Registrars of Cooperative Societies working as" by

¶17

G.O.Ms.No.19 Agrl. & Coop. (Coop.IV) Department, dated 01-021995, has been conferred with the powers of Registrar in respect of District Cooperative Central Banks and District Cooperative Marketing Societies as Column No.4 and that the 1^st respondent has absolutely discharged his functions as District Cooperative Officer, Adilabad in exercising the powers under Section 34-A of the Act. It is further stated that meeting of no confidence motion moved against the petitioner by ten members have been convened on 17-08-2014 in the society office and the results have not been delivered as per the interim order granted on 14-08-2014 and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 25 (1-A) (d) of the Act read with Rule 18 (d) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, the respondents 4 to 13 have no right to vote in No Confidence Motion as they committed default in payment of amount to the society, as such, the respondents 4 to 13 have no right to move No Confidence Motion. He relied on some certificates issued by the Chief Executive Officer showing that the respondents 4 to 13 are due loan amounts from 31-022013 basing on which, he contends that since the respondents 4 to 13 are incompetent to vote, No Confidence Motion meeting vide proceedings dated 18-07-2014 have to be declared as illegal and set aside. He also relied on judgment in W.P.No.17131 of 2013. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation submits that the period of three months as provided by Rule 18 (d) of the Rules is amended by G.O.Ms.No.26 Agrl. & Cooperation (Cooperative), dated 16-02-2012 substituting the period as one year, as such, the respondents 4 to 13 have right to exercise their vote as per Section 25 of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules. He also contends that the 1^st respondent is

¶19

competent to convene meeting of no confidence motion.

¶20

5. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 13 submits that the respondents 4 to 13 are not defaulters unless they are declared so. It cannot be said that they have no right to exercise vote of no confidence motion. He also contends that the PACS, Sathyanpally is registered as Credit Society in the year 1954 on 10-05-1954 and G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 16-02-2012 issued by the Government amending the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1954 covered under Chapter XIII-B, which clearly applies to the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies in terms of Section 115C in Chapter XIII-B.

¶21

6. This Court granted interim direction on 14-08-2014 stating that no confidence motion can go on, but the results shall not be declared and the same is extended from time to time.

¶22

Section 25 (1-A) (d) reads as follows:

¶23

“A member of a society shall be eligible to exercise the right to vote only if he is not in default in the payment of any amount due in cash or kind to the society for such period as may be prescribed.”

¶24

Rule 18 (d) of the Rules reads as follows:

¶25

“a member of a society shall be eligible to exercise the right to vote only if he is not in default of any amount due in cash or kind to the society for a period exceeding three months”

¶26

Section 25 (1-A) (d) of the Act read with Rule 18 (d) of the Rules deal with eligibility of a member of society to exercise the right to vote and basing on the said provisions, the petitioner states that the respondents 4 to 13, who have moved no confidence motion, are the defaulters by relying on certain certificates since they have not paid the amounts within three months as prescribed under Rule 18 (d) of the Rules and have no right to vote in no confidence motion and cannot move no

¶27

confidence motion. The petitioner is not able to show that any proceedings were issued declaring the respondents 4 to 13 as defaulters as per Section 25 (1-A) read with Rule 18 (d) and the respondents 1, 4 to 13 have categorically denied that they are defaulters. The period of three months as prescribed in Rule 18 (d) of the Rules is amended by G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 16-02-2012 and the same is made as one year, as such, the respondents 4 to 13 are not due any amounts to the society. The fact remains that as on today there are no proceedings declaring the respondents 4 to 13 as defaulters.

¶28

Section 31-A (17) reads as follows:

¶29

“prepare the list of defaulters and publish the same as prescribed and place before the General Body.”

¶30

It is to be noted that unless the Committee prepared the list of defaulters and publish the same as prescribed above, the respondents 4 to 13 cannot be declared as defaulters, and therefore, in the absence of any declaration that the respondents 4 to 13 are defaulters, it cannot be said that the respondents 4 to 13 have no right to exercise their vote in no confidence motion or move no confidence motion as contended by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 16-02-2012 applies only to Credit Society, the respondents stated that the society was registered as Credit Society only. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 13 relied on Vancha Veera Reddy and another v. District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶31

and other s^[1] , wherein a Division Bench of this held as follows: “……. Any cessation of membership under Section 21-A or Section 21-AA or Section 21-B of the Act is not automatic, but is subject to the decision of the General Body of the Society on the recommendations of the Managing

¶32

Committee, though any resolution of the General Body in favour of cessation of membership will take effect from the date of disqualification or cessation……”

¶33

Though the decision is rendered in the context of Sections 21-A and 21-B, the Division Bench held that unless disqualification is enquired into in accordance with the rules following the principles of natural justice, the valuable right acquired by him by virtue of his election to be a member of the committee and manage the affairs of the society cannot be done away with. Even as per Section 31-A of the Act, a list of defaulters should be prepared by the Managing Committee and placed before the General Body. But, it is not the case of the petitioner that any such list is prepared by the Managing Committee and published and placed before the General Body as prescribed. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents 4 to 13 are defaulters as per Section 25 (1-A) of the Act read with Rule 18 (d) of the Rules. More so, the 1^st respondent categorically stated that the respondents 4 to 13 have not acquired any disqualification and whether the petitioner society is a credit society or not need not be gone into since there is no preparation of list of defaulters as per Section 31A (17) of the Act.

¶34

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by this Court, I do not find any valid ground in the writ petition and the same is totally devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶35

A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶36

Date: 02-12-2014

¶37

Ksn

¶38

[1] 2010 (3) Andhra Legal Decisions 526 (D.B.)

B. Chandrashaker Reddy, v. The Divisional Co-Operative Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Chandrashaker Reddy, v. The Divisional Co-Operative Officer

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

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd, Vs Rathod Dashrath

A. Nagesamma, Vs Sri Venkateshulu

G.Jagadeeshwar Vs M.Suman Kumar

M/s.Raksha Plantations Pvt. Ltd, (In Liqn.) Vs -

M/s. Vijetha Agro Forms (I) Ltd., (In Liqn) Vs -

Bhoopathi Rajeswar Vs Bhoopathi Suvarna (Dismissed)