Dismissed
Kyama Shanker v. The State of Telangana
Telangana HCWP/4375/2024
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3300 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 4375 OF 2024
Between:
Kyama Shanker, S/o. Mallaiah, aged 48 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.233, Hanman Colony, Seriguda, lbrahimpatnam,RangaReddy District.
..PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutronof lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith.the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the Rc.No.27712024-C daled O2-O2-2024 under section 34-A (3) of Telangana Co-Operative Societies Act,1964 as illegal,arbitrary and in contravention with the mandatoryprocedurestipulated underSection 34-A (1) and (2) of the Act and Rule-24A of the Rules, 1964 andset aside the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleasedto grant to stay of all further proceedingspursuant to thermpugnednotice
Rc.No.277 t2O24-C dat3d 02-02-2024 issued undersection 34-A (3) of Telangana Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964,pending disposalof the above Writ Petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
PETITIONERYRESPONDENT 1,3 AND 4
AND
-...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the High Court may be pleasedto vacate the interim orders daled 21-02-2024 and dismiss theW.P No.4375 of2024 in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI LINGAMPELLYRAVINDER
Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICENAGESHBHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 4375OF 2o24
ORDER:
Petitioner allegesillegatity, arbitrarinessand contravention ofprovisions oI the TelanganaCo-operative Societies Act,1964 (for short, 'the ActJ concerning issuance of no-confidencemotionnotice .He challengcs the legality of the notice Rc. No.277 12O24-Cdated O2'O2'2O24issuedby the 3'd respondent, whichproposesa no-confidcncemotion meeting under Section 34-A(2\ of the Act
Petitioner serving asVice-prcsident of the 2nd respondent - PrimaryAgriculturalCooperativeSociety' Uppariguda, IbrahimpatnamMandal (for short, 'the Society') contests thevalidity of the notice on thc grounds of procedural irregularities insubmission and processingthe purported representation dated3l-O1.2024, allegedly signed by11 members. Hehighlightsthcdiscrepancies particularly concerning the absenceof informationregarding submission of representation to theRegistrar, as required by Section 34-A (2) of the Act. Moreover,the joint represenlation againstboth the President and Vicepresidentis in violationof Section 3a-A(1) of the Act, which mandatesindividualnotices formotions
2
expressing urant of conhdence in office bearers. It is argued that no-confidence motion meeting scheduled on 22.O2.2024 targets both thepresident and Vice_president simultaneously, such a mechanism is not provided for in the Act. He emphasizes that individual mcetings should be conducted for each oflice bearer as the Act does not envisage joint motion against muttiple oIfice bearers.
pctirioner highlights the failure of the tmpugned notice to specify which of the two members submitted represenration dated 3l .O1.2024, thereby violating Section 34-A (2) of the Acr. He further notes that the impugned notice fails ro disclose u'hethcr a copy of the proposed motion was encrosed with the notice dated 31.O1.2024, which is mandatory according to Section 34-A (21 of the Act. According to petitioner, ths 3.a respondent issued the impugned notice without verifying compliance \ryith the procedures outlined in Section 34_A (1) & (2) of the Act. Furrher, the impugned notice fails to comply with Rule 24-A (3) ot the Telangana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. While the notice was directed to be placed on specific notice boards, the Rule stipurates that notices must be affixed on both the Socicty,s notice board and the Office of the Registrar. Additionally, if the Societ5z,s area of operation extends to multiple officcs, notices must be displayed in all relevant
t-i! L,
J
locations. In this case, the 2"d respondent Society operates within lbrahimpatnam Mandal, encompassing several villages, however, the impugned notice did not adhere to these requirements, indicating violation of the established procedure. Petitioner, in his detailed affrdavit, meticulously delineates the purported infractions surrounding the impugned notice issued under Section 34 A (3).
It is stated that Nallola Pochamma, a member alleged to have signed the impugned notice / representation dated 3 1 .O I .2024 , il.as given an aflidavit stating that her signature was obtained without full disclosure of the particulars. He furLher argues that the 4m respondent failed to verify the authenticity of the signatures before issuing the impugned notice-
4
respondent to convene a meeting to consider the motion. On 31.O1.2024, all the eleven committee members pe rsonally submitted the notice of No Confidence Motion ro the respondent, complying with Section 34-A read with Rule 24-A ot Section 34-A reads as under:
" 34-A (1) clearly contemplates that a motion expressing want o[ confidence in the President or the Vice president of the committee or othcr office bearers of the committee may be made in accordance with thc procedure laid dovrrn in the following sub section.
34-A l2l A written notice of intention to make thc rnotion, signed by not less than one half of the total elected membership of the committee Including vacancies if any as constituted under section 3l of this Act together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in per-son, by any two of the members signing the notice, to the Registrar, having jurisdiction over the society"
The submission of motion by all cleven mcmbcrs negates the petitioner's claim that notice does not disclosc which directors submitted it, rendering this contention false. This respondent explains that Section 34-A(21 requires proposals for a no-conlidence motion to be delivered in person by any two members signing the notice. In this case, all eleven members signed and submitted the notice in person, negaring the need for additional witnesses. However, to documcnt thc submission, the respondent took the signatures of tu,o accompanying members as witnesses.
As per Rule 24A (1), upon receiving a noticc expressing no conlidence, Registrar is obligated to convene zr
5
meeting of the Committee, which was duly done in thiscase through Rc.No 277 12O24-C, dated O2.O2.2O24.WhileSection 34A (1) of the Act does not specify separatenotices for motions against the President and Vice-President, the meeting scheduled allowed for separate voting for each position. It is stated, notice was prominently displayed on various public notice boards, ensuring transparency and accessibility to all theparties concerned. The contention that notices should be afhxed in all villages within Gram Panchayats is unfounded, as the Society's operations fall within specihc administrative areas,as stated in the notice. This respondent refutes petitioner's claimregarding Smt. Nallola Pochamma's afhdavit alleging that hersignature was obtained without disclosure. Smt. Nailola Pochamma along rvith other committee members, personally attended to submit no confidence motion notice againstPresident andVice President of the 2'd respondent Society on31.0I.2024. The respondent also asserts that Smt. Pochammaattended the meeting held on 22.02.2024. Section 34A(l) stipulatesthat a simple majority of the total ManagingCommittee is sufficient to convcne a meeting for a no-confidencemotion, arequirement mer, in this case. It is emphasized thatunder Section 34A(1), signatures of a simple majority of thetotalManaging Committee suffice to convene a no-confidencemotion mecting. They assert
6
that the impugned notice was issued in accordance with the procedure outlined in Section 34-A, leading to the meeting on 22.02.2024, where they participated in the voting against the Vice President of the society.
7
I
I
with other committee members personally attended to submit no conl-rdence motion against President andVice-president of the 2nd respondent Society on 31 .O1.2024 and she attendedthe meeting on 22.02.2024. Learned Senior Counselfor petitioneris specihc in arguing thatjoint representation against boththe President and Vice-president is inviolation ofSection34-A(1) which mandates individual notices andmeeting expressing want of confidence in each office bearer.But nou,hereSection34-A(i) laid such a such requirement, as claimed by thepetitioner.
7 . The District Cooperative O fliccr, Ranga Reddy District has also produced the minutes of the meetingheld on 22.02.2024 in a sealed cover,perusal ofwhich shows thatas per the provisions under Section 34-A(I t) of the Act, the required majority for carrying out no conftdence motion is 2/3ra of total number of elected members ofthe Committee i.e. nine out of 13. As eleven out of thirteenmanagingcommittee members voted in favour of no conltdencemotion againstthe President and Vice-President, no confidence motion moved against them is succeeded. However,pursuant to thedirection of this Court dated 21.02.2024, results$'e re kcpt in abeyance.
8
of the Rules is complied with, which forces this Court to take a view that the contentions of learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanced. The Writ petition is devoid of merit and is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
costs.
IO. Conscquently, the miscellaneoys Applications, if -.-.----
any shall stand closed.
SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSIsrANr w},^ SECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To, SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to 2. Two CCs to Sri GP Lingforallpelly uooperatron, Ravind.er, Advocate High Court for the tOpUClState of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI J Two CD Copies TJ GJP I
HIGH COURT
C C TODAY
DATED:2010312024
ORDER
WP.No.4375 of 2024
1 aE S74; ':s.
R
o
2'1 lli:
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.
(q{t'
7-
a<br>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice convened under Section 34-A of the Telangana Co-Operative Societies Act is illegal and arbitrary when it proposes a joint no-confidence motion against multiple office bearers.
Whether compliance with Rule 24A and relevant provisions of the Act regarding signature verification and notice display was maintained.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kyama Shanker
The State of Telangana
P.A.C.S., Uppariguda
JR/District Co-Operative Officer
District Registrar, Co-Operative Societies
Nagesh Bhemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court