Back
1999 Supreme(AP) 810
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BILAL NAZKI
D.Chandramowleswara Reddy - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Cuddapah - Respondent
Decided On : 09-17-99
The competent authority to receive a recall notice under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997, and Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Rules, 1997, is the District Collector or an officer specifically nominated by him.
Headnote:
ANDHRA PRADESH FARMERS MANAGEMENT OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ACT, 1997 - SECTION 10, RULE 8 - RECALL OF CHAIRMAN - PROCEDURE - COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE RECALL NOTICE - DISTRICT COLLECTOR OR OFFICER NOMINATED BY HIM - GENERAL ORDER APPOINTING OFFICER AS COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION OF DECISIONS OF FARMERS ORGANIZATION - NOT SUFFICIENT - SPECIFIC APPOINTMENT REQUIRED FOR RECALL PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Chairman of Distributory Committee No. 9, challenged a notice issued by Deputy Executive Engineer (respondent No. 3) for a meeting to consider his recall. The notice was issued based on a representation by three members seeking his recall. Petitioner contended that the Collector did not nominate respondent No. 3 as an officer under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Rules, 1997, and therefore, the notice was invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Collector's letter to respondent No. 3, directing him to take action on the representation for recall as per the Act and Rules, constituted an appointment of respondent No. 3 as an authority under Rule 8. The Court found that no specific format or procedure was prescribed for such appointment, and the Collector's letter clearly conferred authority on respondent No. 3 to conduct the recall proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector's letter to respondent No. 3 constituted an appointment as an authority under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Rules, 1997. 2. Whether a general order appointing an officer as a competent authority for implementation and execution of decisions of farmers' organizations was sufficient for the purpose of recall proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997, and Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Rules, 1997, and held that the competent authority to receive a recall notice is the District Collector or an officer nominated by him. 2. The Court held that a general order appointing an officer as a competent authority for implementation and execution of decisions of farmers' organizations was not sufficient for the purpose of recall proceedings. A specific appointment was required for recall proceedings under Rule 8.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Collector had validly appointed respondent No. 3 as an authority under Rule 8 and that the notice issued by respondent No. 3 was valid. The Court directed respondent No. 3 to issue a fresh notice for conducting the requisite meeting.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is Chairman of Distributory Committee No. 9, adinimmayapalli, Cuddapah district. He was elected on 15-11-1997. It is submitted that three of the members i. e. , respondents 4 to 6 showed their inclination for recall of the petitioner and they moved an application before the District Collector. The Collector referred the matter to the third respondent i. e. . Deputy Executive Engineer with the following reference:"i enclose herewith a copy of the representation put in by (1) Sri P. Pratapa reddy, W. U. A. President, Chennur, 2. P. Vasantha Kumar Reddy, W. U. A. President, Chinnamachupalli, and (3) B. V. Ramanna, W. U. A. President, Cuddapah and request you to go through the contents of the representation and take action as per the Andhra Pradesh farmers Management of Irrigation systems Act and Rules, 1997 in the matter. "the respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 29-4-1999 to convene a meeting for the purpose of considering the recall on 5-5-1999 at 4. 00 p. m. This notice has been challenged in this writ petition. Stay has been granted and a vacate stay application has been filed. The matter has been heard in detail, therefore the petition is decided finally.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that, in terms of Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh farmers Management of Irrigation systems Act, 1997 (APFM1s Act), the procedure for recall is given. Section 10 lays down:"10. Procedure for recall: (1) A motion for recall of a Chairman or President or member of a Managing Committee, as the case may be, of a farmers organisation may be made by giving a written notice as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one third of the total number of members of the farmer s organisation, who are entitled to vote : provided that no notice of motion under this section shall be made within one year of the date of assumption of office by the person against whom the motion is sought to be moved. (2) If the motion is carried with the support of majority of the members present and voting at a meeting of the general body specially convened for the purpose, the District Collector or the Government as the case may be shall by order remove him from office and the resulting vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as a causal vacancy. "in terms of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh farmers Management of Irrigation Systems rules, 1997 it is further laid down:"5. Recall: (1) the competent authority to receive the recall notice in respect of a chairman or a President or a Member of the Managing Committee by any farmers organisation shall be the District Collector or an officer nominated by him. (2) The recall notice in Form j shall signed by one third of the voters in respect of the President or a member of the Managing Committee of Water users Association; and one third of members of the general body in respect of the President or the Chairman or a member of a Managing Committee of a distributory committee or the project committee. (3) On receipt of such notice the officer shall cause due verification of the notice in Form k . (4) The officer nominated by the District collector shall call for a meeting of the voters or the members of the general body, as the case may be, of the respective Farmers Organisation within 7 days after verification of the notice. (5) In case 51 per cent, of the voters present have voted in favour of the motion for recall, the motion shall be deemed to have been passed. (6) The officer thereafter shall issue the proceedings of recall to the concerned chairman, President or the member of the respective farmers organisation immediately stating that the recall became effective from the date of passing of the resolution; and accordingly, he shall cease to hold such office. "
( 3 ) BY reading Section 10 and Rule 8 together it becomes clear that the competent authority to issue a recall notice is District Collector or an Officer nominated by him. The case of the petitioner is that the District Colle
