Back
1998 Supreme(AP) 307
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK
Anantapur District Govt.Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Cooperative Officer, Anantapur - Respondent
Decided On : 04-27-98
Headnote:
Andhra Pradcsh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 - Rules 12(1),12(5),22 (1), 22 (5) and 22 (9) - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 2 (e),2 (c), 2(n),3,18, 34 (1) - Holding substantive post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies - Government Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited " was registered with Registration under provisions of Act by Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies/ Divisional Co-operative Officer and it was not registered as District Government Employees Co-operative Housing Society" as shown in cause title - Petitioner-society was registered as a primary society and petitioner-society adopted model bye-laws prescribed for primary societies - Elections to Managing Committee of petitioner-society were also treating petitioner-society as a primary society in terms of Rules 22 (1), 22 (5) and 22 (9) of Andhra Pradcsh Co-operative Societies Rules 1964 for short Rule - In other words petitioner-society although was treated as a primary society - Four elected Directors of petitioner-society submitted a representation to first respondent alleging that President of Society has not conducted any Board meeting since date of election but they were given to understand that President has reported to Divisional Co-operative Officer that he conducted meeting of Board Directors with an agenda to convene General Body meeting but they did not receive any meeting notice and therefore they did not attend Board meeting convened and they suspected that there was forgery of signatures of Directors and requesting first respondent to call for minutes book for verification of signatures of Directors - On this representation President of Society was requested to produce minutes book and minutes notice service record at for verification by first respondent - Whether a primary society can at all be brought under term district level society - Whether petitioner-society on facts and in law can be treated as a District level society - Held, Section 18 provides that Registrar shall in accordance with rules classify societies with reference to their objects area of operation membership or any other matter specified in rules - Rule 12 (1) generally classifies societies into 13 categories Co-operative union Credit society Distributive society Farming society Housing society Labour contract society Marketing society Processing society Productive society Supervising union Training institute Field labour society and Miscellaneous society vide Entries - Entry (e) is "housing Society" - Clause (c) of Explanation to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12 defines "housing society" to mean a society which has as its principal object construction of houses for its members or financing or facilitating construction of houses by its members - Petitioner is admittedly a housing society - Term primary society is nowhere defined under die Act or rules except in Rule 12 (5) while classifying federal societies into Apex societies Central societies and Primary societies - Therefore classification made under Rule 12 (5) could apply only to federal societies and that classification cannot be applied to other categories of societies - Court view of matter there is absolutely no scope to import concept of primary society" in classifying any other categories of societies other than federal societies - If it is so it goes without saying that first respondent being Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies is delegated with power to initiate proceedings under Section 34 (1) of Act in respect of primary societies - Petitioner being a primary society impugned notice issued by first respondent is very much within his power delegated to him under Food and Agriculture Department - Writ Petition Dismissed
( 1 ) THE validity of the show cause raxice bearing Rc. No. 2249/96-B dated 23-9-1997 issued by the first respondent under Section 34 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, for short the Act , to the petitioner-society is assailed in this writ petition. The first respondent is holding substantive post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
( 2 ) THE undisputed facts may be stated briefly, at the outset, as under: "government Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Anantapur" was registered with Registration No. 1764 under the provisions of the Act on 26-4-1994 by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies/ Divisional Co-operative Officer, Anantapur, and it was not registered as anantapur District Government Employees Co-operative Housing Society" as shown in the cause title. The petitioner-society was registered as a primary society and the petitioner-society adopted the model bye-laws prescribed for the primary societies. Elections to the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society were also held treating the petitioner-society as a primary society in terms of Rules 22 (1), 22 (5) and 22 (9) of Andhra Pradcsh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, for short the Rules . In other words, the petitioner-society although was treated as a primary society.
( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may be stated now briefly as under: Four elected Directors of the petitioner-society submitted a representation to the first respondent on 8-9-1997 alleging that Sri. P. Sreedhar, President of the Society has not conducted any Board meeting since the date of election but they were given to understand that the President has reported to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Anantapur that he conducted the meeting of the Board of Directors on 24-8-1997 with an agenda to convene the General Body meeting on 28-9-1997, but they did not receive any meeting notice and therefore they did not attend the Board meeting convened on 24-8-1997, and they suspected that there was forgery of the signatures of the Directors and requesting the first respondent to call for the minutes book for verification of signatures of the Directors. On this representation, the President of the Society was requested to produce the minutes book and the minutes notice service record on 18-9-1997 at 11. 00 a. m. for verification by the first respondent. The President of the Society did not comply with the direction issued by the first respondent, and he did not produce the records on 18-9-1997 but sent a letter dated 18-9-1997 stating that the records are required for investigation by the police on a complaint filed by him against the ex-President of the Society. However, the President sent xerox copies of all the resolutions recorded in the minutes book, but he did not produce any record relating to service of notice on the Directors. The first respondent after perusing the xerox copies of the resolutions recorded in the minutes book and satisfying himself that the Committee of Management disobeyed the lawful orders issued by him, thought it fit to initiate action under Section 34 (1) of the Act to supersede the Committee of Management of the petitioner-society. Therefore, the first respondent issued the impugned notice contemplated under Section 34 (1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner-society to show cause as to why the Committee of Management should not be superseded for the reasons set out in the impugned notice.
( 4 ) THE validity of the show cause notice is assailed on two grounds. The first ground is that the first respondent is not conferred with the power of the Registrar under Section 34 (1) of the Act, therefore, the impugned notice is one without jurisdiction and ultra vires of the Act. The second ground taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the impugned action is also tained with mala fide. Although these two grounds are taken in the affidavit, the lear
