V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ELECTIONS were conducted for the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent society and for the Presidentship of the society, on 27-5-1995. All the eight Directors were elected unanimously. So also the president, the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioners were elected as Directors. There were strained relations between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, the President. Therefore, it was alleged, the 3rd respondent, who is the President of the Society, along with 3 Directors hatched a plan to declare the petitioners as disqualified members on the ground of not attending three meetings of the Board, which renders automatic cessation of the membership. Accordingly a meeting was called on 5-12-1996, and one of the agenda to be discussed was to declare the petitioners as disqualified. However, the petitioners were not served with the notices for the meeting to be held on 5-2-96. Coming to know of the agenda, they filed a representation to the 3rd respondent, stating that they had been attending all the Board meetings regularly. They also requested that they should also be given notice of the meeting to be held on 5-12-96. However, the 3rd respondent did not send the notice and held the meeting on 5-12-96. As three Board members did not agree with the 3rd respondent to declare the petitioners as disqualified, the meeting was postponed by the President. Another notice dated 6-12-96 was issued for the meeting to be held on 13-12-96. But no notice was sent to the petitioners on the ground that they ceased to be members of the Society. The meeting was conducted on 13-12-96, where only three members of the Board attended, presided over by the 3rd respondent. Inspite of lack of quorum, it was resolved in the meeting that the petitioners were declared as disqualified for not attending three consecutive meetings. On the same day Respondents 4 and 5 herein, have been co-opted as Directors. The petitioners challenged their disqualification and co-option in this writ petition.

( 2 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the disqualification was not in accordance with Section 21b of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the Act ) and the Rules framed thereunder. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners to enable them to submit their explanations. The President or the secretary of the Society was bound to inform the 1st respondent-Asst. Director of handlooms and Textiles, and he in turn is required to satisfy himself that the action was proper and thereafter he has to inform the petitioners about cessation as members. This mandatory procedure has been observed only in breach. It was also contended that the petitioners have got a right for applying for reinstatement from the date of the intimation by the 1st respondent and the Board of directors or the Society was obligated, under law, to reinstate the petitioners. The co-option of Respondents 4 and 5 was also challenged as it is violative of Rule 24b of the Rules.

( 3 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent stating that the representation made by the petitioners to the 1st respondent regarding the meeting dated 5-12-96 called for to disqualify the petitioners, was sent to the concerned Asst. Development Officer for his report. In his report dated 4-1-97, the asst. Development Officer stated that the 3rd respondent has not sent the notice of the meeting to be held on 5-12-96 to the petitioners and four Directors have attended the meeting and the meeting was postponed due to lack of quorum. The notices for the meeting to be held on 13-12-96 were also not sent to the petitioners, though in the agenda one of the items was to take action against the petitioners. In the said meeting the petitioners were removed from their directorship and two members were co-opted. In the counter affidavit it was clearly stated that the 1st respondent was not intimated about the action taken in disqualifying the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document