( 1 ) THE petitioners, 10 in number, filed the present writ petition questioning the show-cause notice in Rc. No. 112/95/a3, dated 2-1-1996 calling upon them to submit their explanation, if any, why they should not be removed from the membership of the society as they are found to be not professional tappers as per the report of the Sub-Divisional Prohibition and Excise officer, Nellore dated 27-12-1995.

( 2 ) ONE of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise is not empowered to remove the members of the Tappers co-operative Society, As that power was not specifically delegated to him by the Government while delegating the powers of the Registrar to the Excise Superintendents, who are now designated as Assistant Commissioners of prohibition and Excise in G. O. Ms. No. 39, food and Agriculture (Co~op. IV) Department, dated 3-4-1979.

( 3 ) THIS Court while issuing notice before admission, suspended the impugned proceedings by order dated 12-2-1996. Subsequently, the respondents filed counter-affidavit by contending that though the power under section 21 (3) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative societies Act (for short the Act ) was not specifically delegated, as the power under section 4 of the Act, general superintendence, was delegated to the Excise Superintendent, he is well within his powers to exercise the power of removal of the members from the tappers Co-operative Society.

( 4 ) AS the decision of this Court is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the administration of the Tappers Co-operative societies in this State, I have given sufficient time nearly an year to enable the Government to delegate the powers under Section 21 (3) of the Act to the Excise Superintendents. The Government Pleader having addressed d. O. Letters also to the Government, ultimately expressed his inability to move the Government in the matter. In the circumstances, I am left with no other alternative except to dispose of the writ petition on merits.

( 5 ) FROM the pleadings, it is seen that the power of removal of members of a co-operative Society was not specifically delegated to the Excise Superintendent, but the respondents want to rely on Section 4 (2) of the Act which came into existence on 22-4-1985. Section 4 (2) of the Act is in the following terms:"every Society registered or deemed to be registered under this Act shall function subject to such directions as may be issued by the Registrar, from time to time, in the interests of the Co-operative movement or the public interest or in order to prevent the affairs of the society from being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members or of the depositors or creditors thereof, and the society shall comply with such directions. "from a reading of the above Section, it is seen that the power conferred under Section 4 (2) is traceable to the power of superintendence by the Registrar in the interest of Co-operative movement or public interest and this can be invoked only when the situation that has arisen for consideration cannot be dealt with under any of the provisions of the Act specifically, but not otherwise. Admittedly, the power of removal of the members from the society by the Registrar is specifically dealt with in Section 21 (3) of the Act. As far as the powers of the Registrar in so far as they relate to Toddy Tappers Co-operative societies, were delegated and conferred on the Excise Superintendent by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 3 (2) of the Act. But, as far as the power of removal of the members from a Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society is concerned, the same was not specifically dealt with while delegating the powers of the Registrar to the Excise Superintendents. Hence, the contention of the respondents that though the power of removal under section 21 (3) of the Act was not specifically delegated to the respondent, he can exercise the powe