Dismissed

L.Vittal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2024WP/4689/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cooperative society president challenged a no-confidence motion notice as procedurally defective under Section 34-A of the Telangana Co-Operative Societies Act. The court found all statutory requirements met, nine members validly signed, defaulting members were not formally disqualified, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim direction lapses; miscellaneous applications closed.

L.Vittal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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 NO: 4689 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

L.Vittal Reddy, S/o. Late Narsimha Reddy, aged 64 Yrs., Occ. Business, Rl/o. Gworelli Village, Abdulapurmet [,4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Telangana State CoOperative Societies Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Farmers Service Co-Operative Socrety Ltd , (F.S.C.S.)Batasingaram, Abdulapurmet lt/landal. Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its Secretary

¶13

J JFI/D|strict Co-Operative Officer, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

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

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of [t/andamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the Rc. No.33912024-C dated 09-02-2024 under section 34-A (3) of Telangana Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention with the mandatory procedure stipulated under Section 34-A (1) and (2) of the Act and Rule-24A of the Rules. 1964 and set aside the same

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section¹ 51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant to stay of all further proceedings^pursuant to the impugned notice

¶19

Rc.No.339/2024- C dated O9-O2- 2024 issued under section 34-A (3) of Tetangana Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964, pending disposal of the above Writ petition.

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶21

Between:

¶22

The State of Telanga-na, Rep. by its principal Secretary Telangana State Co_ Operative Societies Secretariat,' Hyderabab.

¶23

JR/District Co-Operative Officer, Ranga Reddy District

¶24

District Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Ranga Reddy District.

¶25

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT Nos.1,3 and 4

¶26

AND

¶27

1 L.Vittal Reddy, S/o. Late Narsimha Reddy, aged 64 yrs., Occ_ Business, R/o. Gworell r Village, Abdulapurmet Manclal,- Rariga Reddy District.

¶28

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶29

2 Farmers Service Co-Onerative Society Ltd., (F.S.C.S.) Batasingaram, Abdulapurnret Mandat. Ranga Reddy'District. Rep. by'its Secre"tary

¶30

..,RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶31

Petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interirn order dated:22-o2-2o24 in w.p.No.46g9 of 2024 and also dismiss the WP.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI LINGAMpELLy RAVINDER

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR COOPERATION

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

IION,BLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAGESH BIIEEMAPAKA}

¶36

WRIT PETIT^{IoN No. 46a9OF 2024}

¶37

o RDER:

¶38

Legaliry of the^{Notice Rc. No. 33912o24-Cdated} OT.O2.2O24^{issued by the 3'd respondentproposing ano-} confidence^{motion meeting on 28.02.2024at 11:3O AM at the} premises of^{the 2"d respondentunderSection 34-A (2) of the} Telangana^{Co-OperativeSocietiesAct, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'),} deeming it^{arbitrary and contrary to the mentionedAct, is} challenged^{in this Writ Petition is hled'} 2. Petitioner, it is stated,^{hoids tl.e positionof} President^{in the 2'd respondent} -^{FarmersService Cooperative} Society^{Limited, Batasingaram, having been electedas a} member/director^{inFebruary 2O2O, alongside12other} members.^{Based on a notice/ representation dated 08 'O2 '2024} allegedly^{signedby nine membersand submitted to the 3rd} respondent^{under Section34-A (2) of the Act, the subject} impugned^{notice rvasissued proposing to conduct no-confidence} motion against^{pctitioner on 28'02'2024' The grievanceof} petitloner^ls that the^notice /^{representation dated08 'O2 '2024} lacks claritY regarding submission^{process. Itbears the} signatures^{of two witnesses, yet fails to speciff which of lhe two} signed^{directors delivcred it to the 3'd respondent' Additionally'}

¶39

¶40

notice does not mention the names of individuals who allegedly submitted it. Upon examination, it is evident that purpose of notice was to request a meeting concerning the petitioner.

¶41

It is stated that Section 34_A (l) of the Act outlines lhe procedure for expressing want of confidence, requrring not less than half of the total elected members to sign and deliver the notice personally by any two sigring members to the Registrar. The notice/representation dated 0g.02.2024 fails to comply with Section 34_A (l) & (2) of the Act, which sripulares that two individuars who sign the notice must submir it to rhe Registrar. However, the notice does not specify who submitted it to the Registrar, thus violating the provisions of the Act. The Act does not authorize the 3.a respondent to proceed with a no confidence motion without proper delivery of a notice of rntention by two directors. Additionally, upon close examination, there appears to be tampering with the date in Lhe reference column of the notice, raising suspicions regarding its authenticit5r

¶42

Further, it is stated, the impugned notice does not indicate whether a copy of the proposed motion was enclosed with the notice dated 09.O2.2O24, a mandatory requirement under Section 34_A (21 of the Act. Notably, thc notrcc dated O9.O2.2O24 was not served on petitioner. Subsequently, on

¶43

¶44

petitioner made an Application ort 1O.O2.2024 under^{the Right} to Information Act for issuance of copy of^noticedated O8.O2.2O24, which was not^{granted. Anotherapplication was} made on 13.02.2024 , following which the^{notice was hnally} issued.

¶45

The impugned notice was directed to be^{placed on} the notice boards of the 2"d respondent,^{District Collector,and} Mandal Praja Parishad Office, Abdullapurmet.^{A perusal of Rule} 24-H (31 of Telangana Co-Operative Society^{Rules, 1964reveals} that a copy of the notice should be affixed^{on the notice board of} the Society and the office of the^{Registrar.The proviso states} that if the Society's area extends to more than^{one Panchayat or} Mandal Ofhce, notice must be affixed in all^{such offices. In this} case, the Society's operational area encompasses^{Abdullapurmet} Mandal, including Batasingaram, Kavadpal[i,^Abdulapur, Pidlipur, Inamguda, Gunthapalli, Laskarguda,^Majidpur, Balijaguda, Taramatipet, Gowrelli, Anajipur, Quthbullapur, Jafarguda, and municipalities like Peddamberpet,^Pasumamula, and Maripalle. The impugned notice does^{not mention displayof} notices in all relevant places such as villages/^{panchayats within} the 2nd respondent operational area, violating Rule-24A.

¶46

It is relevant to mention that one o[ [he members Iisted in the notice dated 08.02.2024 at S.No.3, rvho has signed,

¶47

¶48

is disqualified from continuing as a member and to vote as per bye-law No.23A due to defaulting on loans. The statement of loan account reveals that she is liable to pay Rs. 10,OO,00O/- as of O8.O4.2022. Similarly, other signatories like Mogulla Chinna Yadi Reddy at S.No.4, Mekala Ramulu at S.No.9, and Garrta Swapna Reddy at S.No.6 are also defaulters with respective liabilities. If these disqualihed rnembers are excluded, the remaining signatories amount to only 5 out of 13 total elected members, falling short of the required 5O7o. As per tJle judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Pa.wan Kurnar Tiwari (Appeal Civil No.4O79 of 2OO4l dated O4.01.2OO5 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a minimum of 7 members representing 50% of the total elected members, is required to initiate a no-confidence motion.

¶49

Held: "We do not ftnd Jault uith ang of the tuo rea,so'rrings adopted bg tle High Court. The rule of round.ing olJ based on logic a.nd. com,tnon sense ts.. lt part is one-ha$ or more, its aalue shall be increased. to one qnd iJ part is tess than half then its ualue shall be ignored., 46.50 should haae been rounded off to 47 d.nd. not to 46 as has been d.one- If 47 crrndtdates uould hante been eonsidered for selection in general category, the respondent uta.s sure to Jind a place 7n tle list of selected rneritorious candidates a.nd hence entitled to appointment. "

¶50

Hence, petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned notice dated 09.O2.2024, as its enforcement u,ould prejudice the peLitioner's righ ts.

¶51

¶52

By order dated^{22'02'2024'this Courtissued notice} to the respondents,^{atthe same time' directed thatno-} confidence^{motion meeting scheduledto be held on 28'02 '2024} may go on,^{but the official respondents were directednot to} declare the^{results until further orders'}

¶53

Pursuant to^{the notice, the 3'd respondenthled a} comprehensive^{counter-afftdavit,stating that 9 out of the total} 13 committee^{members personallyattended the 3'd Respondent} Oflrce on O8.O2.2O24,^{submittingproposals and a notice of no} confidence^{motion, urging conveningol a meeting she clarifies} the role of^{two accompanyingmembers'whose signatureswere} obtained merelY^{as witnesses,in compliancewith statutory} 34-A(2), the ProPosals^{of no} requirements.^{Under Section} confidence^{motion shall be delivered in personby any two} members^{singing on the notice lnthc instant case' all 9} members^{personally submitted the notice' therefore'the} question of taking^{signatures of any ol two membersas} witnesses does^{not arise'Nonethelcss'the respondent recorded} the signatures^{of two accompanyingmcmbers to documentthe} motion's^{submissionThisaction ensures procedural} transparency^{and compliance with lcgal requirements'as} stipulated^{by Section34'\l2l of thc Act'}

¶54

¶55

The respondent emphasizes adherence to Rule 24 A(1) of the Rules, which mandates the Registrar to convene a committee meeting upon receiving a modon expressing no confidence. Accordingly, they scheduled a meeting for 2a.O2.2O24 at l1.OO AM, to be held at FSCS, Batasingaram, Abdullapurmct Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to deliberate and vote on the no_confidence motion and notice was issued under Rc. No. 339/2024_C, dated, 09.02.2O24, informing the Managing Committee mcmbers of the meeting. This action aligns with the provision of Rule 2aA( l ) and ensures procedural compliance with the Telangana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964.

¶56

According to this respondent, Section 34_A mandates that a written nodce of intention for a motion, signed by at least half of the total elected committee members, must be submitted to the Regisrrar. With a total of 13 elected committee members, half woutd constitute 7 members, however, 9 elected committee mcmbers submitted the motion against petitioner. The 3'd respondent issued impugned notice and served it on a committce members including petitioner, who received it on 09.O2.2024, as cvidenced by the acknowledgment. Additionally, the notice was clisprayed on various Notice Boards, including those of the District Collector, District Cooperative Officer, FSqS, Batasingaram, MPDO, Abdullapurmet, Municipal

¶57

¶58

I !

¶59

Commissioner, Abdultapurmet, HDCCB Ltd,^Nampally,and Centra-l Bank of India, Abdullapurmet, in compliance^{with Rule} 24(A) of the TCS Act, 1964. Copies of notices^{were afhxedat} MPDO Office and Municipal Office in^{Abdullapurmetfulfiiling} the legal requirements. The Rule^{mandatesaffixing of notices} either on Panchayat Offices or Mandal^{Offices,both of which} were carried out effectively in this case.^{Proviso1 of Rule 24-A is} not obligatory but rather onc of^{several methods of service.} Failure to affix noticcs on Panchayat or^{MandalOffrce notice} boards does not prejudice either^{petitioneror the 2"d} respondent SocieQz, as thc primary^{purposeis to ascertain} whether the majority o[ committee members^{have lost} confidence in the Pctitioner.^{Petitioner requested copiesof the} no-conhdence motion^{noticc throughan RTI Application and a} direct request to the 3rd^{Respondent.The 3rd Respondent} promptly provided the requested documents on tlte^sameday, which petitioner duly acknowledged.

¶60

It is stated that petitioner's claim that out^{of nine} committee members^{(Sl. Nos 3, 4, 6, and 9) who signed no-} confidence motion proposal^{rveredisqualifiedis unfounded. As} of now, these rnembcrs^{have not been officiallydeclared} disquatified. According^{to Scction 71-A,it is the responsibilityof} the 2^d respondent^{Society to in[orm the Registrarand provide}

¶61

¶62

details for recovery of dues from defaulting members. Hou,cver, as of the submission date of the motion, no such ApplicaLion was made against the alleged defaulters, and thus, they remain valid committee members. Their signatures on thc noconhdence motion are therefore legally sound. 5. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri L. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner and lcarncd Government Pleader for Cooperation. 6. The main allegation of petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has deviated from the procedure contcmplated under Section 34-A (1) and (2) of the Act. The notice docs not specify who submitted it to the Registrar, thus violating the provisions of the Act. The Act does not authorize thc 3.d respondent to proceed with a no-confidence motion without proper delivery of a notice of intention by two directors. For which, the 3.d respondent stated in the counter that out o[ 13 committee members, nine personally attendcd the 3.,1 Respondent Office on OA.O2.2O24, submitted notice of no confidence motion urging convening of a meeting. Under Scction 34-A(2), proposals of no conhdence motion shall be delivered in person by any two members singing on the notice_ [n the instant case, all 9 members personally submitted the notice, thcrcfore, thc question of taking signatures of any of tu,o membcrs as

¶63

¶64

witnesses does not arise. Nonetheless, the respondent^recorded the signatures of two accompanying members^{as witnessesto} document the motion's submission. Hence, the contention of learned Senior Counsel does not hold much water.

¶65

Another ground taken by the learned Senior Counsel is the impugned notice does not indicate^whether a copy of the proposed motion was enclosed or not, and the notice was not served on petitioner. Subsequently, on petitioncr making Application on 13.02.2024 under the Right to Information Act, copy of noLice was furnished, under due acknowledgment. Along with the counter-affidavit, thc 3'd respondent annexed the letter addressed by her to^petitioner dated 13.O2.2O24. The said contention was^answered accordingly.

¶66

The prime allegation of petitioner is that the members arrayed at Sl.Nos. 3, 4, 9 and 6 were disqualihed as they are defaulters with respective liabilities. lf they are excluded, remaining signatories amount to only 5 out^{of 13 totat} elected mernbers, falling short of the required 50%. For the said submission, the 3'd respondent stated that as of^{now, these} members have not been ofhcially declared disqualified. Here it^is to be seen, as per Section 71-A, it^{is the responsibility of the 2"d} respondent Society to^{inform the Registrar} and^{providedetails}

¶67

¶68

for recovery of dues from defaulting members. However, as of the submission date of the motion, no such Application was made against the alleged defaulter, thus, they remain valid committee members. Their signatures on the no_confidence motion are therefore legally sound.

¶69

As regards failure to comply with Rule 24_A (3) of the Rules, learned Government pleader submits that copies of notices were affixed at MpDO Office and Municipal Office in Abdullapurmet fulfilling the legal requiremenrs. The Rule mandates affixing of notices either on panchayat Olhces or Mandal Offices, both of which were carried out effcctively in this case. Proviso I of Rule 24-A is not obligatory but rather one of several methods of service. Failure to aflx notices on panchayat or Mandal Office notice boards does not prcjudice either petitioner or the 2nd respondent Society, as the primary purpose is to ascertain whether the majority of committee members have lost confidence in the petitioner.

¶70

The Distilct Cooperarive Officcr, Ranga Reddy District has also produced the minutes of thc meeting held on 28.02.2024 in a sealed cover, perusal of which shou,s that as per Section 34-4(4) of TCA Acr, 1964 the quorum for the Noconfidence motion meeting shall be majoriry- of the total members of the committee including vacancics , if any. As (9)

¶71

¶72

out of (13) managing voted in favour of the No-Confidence motion moved against the President, the No-confidence is succeeded. However, as per the directions of the Hon'bie High Court in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in Writ Peririon No. 4689 of 2024, the No-confidence motion meeting is conducted but the results are not declared.

¶73

The foregoing discussion shows that at every stage, the 3.d respondent has taken care to cnsure that the procedure as mandated in Section 34-A read with Rule 24-A(1) 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

¶74

dismissed.

¶75

The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No

¶76

costs.

¶77

Consequently, the misccllaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

¶78

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIST R

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to Sri Lingampelly^{Ravrnder, Advocate} IOPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP for Coopdratron.^{High Court for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT] J Two CD Copies TJ GJP B

HIGH COURT

C C TODAY

DATED:2010312024

ORDER

-, 1t'; S 1 ,4 i4-
,.,+ {_l
;:( n
+ i
:} 21 fiAfl 2t2{ ,) r)

¶88

WP.No.4689 of 2024