Dismissed

T.Sudharhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2024WP/4379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cooperative society president challenged a no-confidence motion notice issued under Section 34-A of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act as procedurally defective, arguing joint motions against President and Vice-President and display irregularities were impermissible. The court found compliance with Section 34-A and Rule 24-A at every stage and dismissed the writ petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

T.Sudharhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 4379 0F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

T.SH.N^{idlifrllgqqy S/o Sathi Reddy, aged47 yrs., Occ:Agriculture, R/o} o.z-zl, Ueetharampet, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Distriit.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 I19-S-l?!9^{of TelanganaRepby. its principat Secretary Telangana State Co_} uperattve l;octettes Secretaflat. Hyderabad.

¶12

2 P A.C S., Uppariguda, lbrahimpatnam Mandal. 3 JR/District Co-Operative Officer, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

4 District Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Ranga Reddy Diskict.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High'cJurt may oe prleased to issue a writ of JVlandamus, declaring the action of the respondent l.lo.3 in issuing the Rc.No.277t2o24-c dated 02-02-2024 under section 5+-n rsl of relangana co-operative societies Act, 1964 as ilegar, arbitrary and in contravention with the mandatory procedure stipulated und6r section a+-n 1r I a (2) of the Act and Rule-24A of the Rules, 1964 and set aside the same.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, irre Higrr court may be pleaseJ to s'tay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice ic.No'.277 t2024() dated 02-02-2024 issued under section 34-A (3f of relangana co-operative liocieties Act, 1964, pending disposal of the above Writ petition.

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶19

lSetween:

¶20

1 ll"^-9_lll: of Telangana, Rep by its principat Secretary Tetangana State Co_ Uperattve Societies Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶21

JR/District Co-Operative Officer, Ranga Reddy District

¶22

3 Diskict Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1,3 & 4

¶24

AND

¶25

1 T.SH,N$Iqrlrl o.t-z /, ieetnarampet,^{R,eddy, S/o Sathi} lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy^{Reddyaged 47 yrs., Occ,} Diskiit.^{Agricutture,R/o.}

¶26

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶27

P A.C.S., Uppariguda, lbrahimpatnam Mandal.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶29

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, te Higr, court may be pleaseJ to vacate the interim orders dated 21-o2-2024 and dismiss the w p lrio 4379 of 2024 in the interest of justice.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt LINGAMpELLy RAVINDER

¶31

Counsel forthe Respondents: ASST. cp FOR COOPERATION

¶32

rhe Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA

¶34

WRIT PETITION No. 4379 OF 2o24

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Petitioner alleges illegality, arbitrariness and contravention of provisions of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) concerning issuance^of no-confidence motion notice. He challenges the^{legality of the} notice Rc. No.277 12O24-C dated O2.O2.2O24 issued by the^3'd respondent, which proposes a no confidence motion^meeting under Section 34-A (2) of the Act.

¶37

Petitioner serving as President of the^2nd respondent - Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Uppariguda, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal (for short, 'the^Society') contests the validity of the notice on the^grounds of^procedural irregularities in submission and processing the^purported representation dated 31.O1.2024, allegedly signed by I¹ members. He highlights the discrepancies^particularly concerning the absence of information regarding submission^of representation to the Registrar, as required by Section 34-A⁽²⁾ of the Act. Moreover,^{the joint} representation^{against both the} President and Vice-president is in violation of Section^{34-A(1) of} the Act, which^mandates individual notices for^motions expressing want^{of conirdencein} office bearers.^{It is argued that}

r:!r

,,. .:::

no-conlidence motion meeting scheduled ofi 22.02.2024 targets both the President and Vice-president simultaneously, such a mechanism is not provided for in the Act. He emphasizes that individual meetings should be conducted for each ofhce bearer as the Act does not envisage joint motion against multiple ofhce bearers.

¶42

Petitioner highlights the failure of the impugned notice to specify which of the two members submitted representation dated 31.01 .2 O24, thereby violating Section 34-A (2) of the Act. He further notes that the impugned notice fails to disclose whether a copy of the proposed motion was enclosed with the notice dated 31.01.2024, which is mandatory according to Section 34-A (21 of the Act. According to petitioner, the 3.d respondent issued the impugned notice without verifying compliance with the proced.ures outlined in Section 34-A (1) & (2) of the Act. Further, the impugned notice fails to comply with Rule 24-A (3) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. While the notice was directed to be placed on specific notice boards, the Rule stipulates that notices must be afhxed on both the Societ5r's notice board and the Office of the Registrar. Additionally, if the Society's area of operation extends to multiple offices, notices must be displayed in all relevant locations. In this case, the 2"d respbndent Society operates

¶43

¶44

-7

¶45

within Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, encompassing several^villages, however, the impugned notice did not adhere to^these requirements, indicating violation of the established^procedure. Petitioner, in his detailed affidavit, meticulously delineates^the purported infractions surrounding the impugned notice issued under Section 34-A (3).

¶46

It is stated that Nallola Pochamma, a member alleged to have signed the impugned notice/representation dated 31.01.2024, has given an afhdavit stating that^her signature was obtained without full disclosure of^the particulars. He further argues that the 4fr respondent failed to verify the authenticity of the signatures before issuing^the impugned notice.

¶47

On 21.02.2024, this Court issued notice before admission and directed that no-conhdence motion^meeting scheduled to be conducted on 22.02.2024 at | 1.3O a.m., may^go on, but the results should not be declared until further orders. 4. In the counter afhdavit filed on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4, it is stated that the Managing Committee members of PACS,^Uppariguda, numbering eleven out of thirteen, have submitted a notice of No Confidence Motion in form-AAA against the^President, petitioner, prompting the respondent to convene^{a meeting} to consider the motion. On

¶48

¶49

31.O1.2024 , all the eleven committee members personally submitted the notice of No Confidence Motion to the respondent, complying with Section 34-A read with Rule 24-A of Section 34-A reads as under:

¶50

" 34-A (1) clearly contemplates that a motion expressing want of conhdence in the President or the Vice president of the committee or other ofhce bearers of tl.e committee may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub section.

¶51

34-A (21 A written notice of intention to make the motion, signed by not less than one half of the total elected membership of the committee Including vacancies if any as constituted under section 31 of this Act together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person, by any two of the members signing the notice, to the Registrar, having jurisdiction over the society',

¶52

Submission of motion by all eleven members negates the petitioner's claim that notice does not disclose which directors submitted it, rendering this contention false. This respondent explains that Section Z4-A(2) requires proposals for a no-confidence 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, negating the need for additional witnesses. However, to document the submission, the respondent took the signatures of two accompanying members as witnesses.

¶53

As per Rule 24A (1), upon receiving a notice expressing no confidence, Registrar is obligated to convene a meeting of the Committee, which was duly done in this case

¶54

)

¶55

.^.!E;- 7

¶56

through Rc.No 277 12O24-C, dated O2.O2.2O24. While Section 34A (1) of the Act does not specify separate notices 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 accessibiliry to all the parties 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 claim regarding Smt. Nallola Pochamma's afhdavit alleging that her signature was obtained without disclosure. Smt. Nallola Pochamma along with other committee members, personally attended to submit no-confidence motion notice against President and^Vice President of the 2"d respondent Sociely on 31.O1.2024. The respondent also asserts that Smt. Pochamma attended the meeting held on 22.02.2024. Section 34A (1) stipulates that a simple majority of the total Managing Committee is sufltcient to convene a meeting for a no-confidence motion, a requirement met in this case. It is emphasized that under Section 34A (1), signatures of a simple majority of the total Managing Committee suffice to convene a no-confidence motion meeting. They assert that the impugned notice was issued in accordance with the

¶57

¶58

¶59

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.

¶60

r..

¶61

Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Lingampally Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government pleader for Cooperation.

¶62

The prime concern of petitioner is that the 3.d respondent has given a go-bye to the procedure contemplated under Section 34-A (1) and (2) of the Act. For which, the 3.d respondent retaliated in the counter stating that of thirteen members, eleven had signed and personally submitted the notice of no conhdence motion on 31.01.2024 in conformit5z with the mandate laid down in Section 34_A read with Rule 24_ A and the 3rd respondent took signatures of two of the accompanying members as witnesses. Thereupon, in compliance with Rule 24-A(ll, a meeting was scheduled to be conducted on 22.02.2024 by the impugned notice dated O2.O2.2O24. Notice was prominently displayed on various pubiic notice boards, ensuring transparency and accessibility to all the parties concerned and at aI the administrative areas where the society's operations fall. As regards obtaining Nallola Pochamma's signatures forcefully, it is stated that she along with other committee members personally attended to submit

¶63

¶64

I l

¶65

no confidence motion against President and Vice-president of the 2nd respondent Society on 37.O1.2024 and she attended the meeting on 22.02.2024. karned Senior Counsel for petitioner is specihc in arguing that joint representation against both the President and Vice-president is in violation of Section 34-A( 1) which mandates individuai notices and meeting expressing want of confidence in each office bearer. But nowhere Section 34-A(1) laid such a such requirement, as claimed by the petitioner. 7. The District Cooperative Ofhcer, Ranga Reddy District has also produced the minutes of the meeting held on 22.02.2024 in a sealed cover, perLlsal of which shows that as per the provisions under Section 34-A(11) of the Act, the required majority for carrying out no confidence motion is 2/3ra of total number of elected members of the Committee i.e. nine out of 13. As eleven out of thirteen managing committee members voted in favour of no conhdence motion against the President and Vice-President, no conlidence motion moved against them is succeeded. However, pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 21.02.2024, results were kept in abeyance. B. The foregoing discussion evidences that at every stage, the 3.d respondent has taken care to ensure that the procedure as mandated in Section 34-A read with Rule 24-L(ll of the Rules is complied with, which forces this Court to take a

¶66

¶67

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.

¶68

¶69

The Writ^petition is accordingly, dismissed. No

¶70

costs.

¶71

1O. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

¶72

//TRUE COPY//

¶73

SD/.A.V. PR ASSISTANT RAR SECTIO OFFICER

¶74

¶75

1 One CC to SRI LINGAMPELLY RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION, High Court for the Statb of Telangana lourl

¶76

Two CD Copies

I.IIGH COURT

DATED:2010312024

I)RDER

.. ,,'l
1tr'rj .: . ' .-',.\
^<br>21 illAl' ?ilq
il Do
\ ..'...'

¶84

WP.No.4379 of 2024

¶85

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION IruITHOUT COSTS

T.Sudharhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T.Sudharhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veeramsetti Kaleswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

V. Susheel Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Mr.Chettukindi Shivraj alias Kammari Shivraj Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. G.S. Security and Manpower Services Vs The Nalgonda District Co-operative Central Bank Limited

Kyama Shanker Vs The State of Telangana

L.Vittal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana