Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Gottipati Ramarao - Appellant
Versus
Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies apddcf, A.P.Rashtra Karshaka Parishad, hyderabad - Respondent
W.P. No.11475/91
Decided On : 10-03-91
Advocates Appeared :
M/s. K. Harinath,K. Krushibabu,Mr. L. Nageswara Rao
Held : Section 32(7)(a) of the AP Cooperative Societies Act confers the power on the Registrar to appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the Society for a specified period Where it is not possible to call a general meeting for the purpose of conducing the election In exercise of that power, the petitioners were appointed as persons-in-charge for a term of specified duration Such appointment cannot be reversed arbitrarily or on irrelevant grounds If the Registrar has exercised the power without verification and consideration of relevant facts and without proper application of mind, the resultant order is liable to be struck down In this case, if the first respondent wanted to change the Managing Committee on some facts which have come to his light subsequent to the appointment of petitioners as persons-in-charge, the least that could have been done by him is to cause enquiry to be made into such facts or to give an opportunity of making a representation to the petitioners who are adversely affected by the proposed action As this has not been done and the impugned order is nothing but an instance of arbitrary exercise of power, the impugned order is not legally sustainable WP Allowed
( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are challenging the proceedings dated 23-8-1991 issued by the first respondent (Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, a. P. D. D. C. F. , Hyderabad) appointing five persons as Persons-in-charge to manage the affairs of the Appapuram Milk Producers Co-operative Society till 11-11-1991 or till an elected committee assumes charge or subject to modified orders that may be issued, whichever is earlier. By the said proceedings respondents No. 2 to 6 were appointed as Persons-in-charge. Amongst them the 6th respondent is the Supervisor of Milk producers Co-operative Union Limited, Vadlamoodi. The petitioners have no objection for the inclusion of the fifth respondent. The petitioners are seeking for a declaration that they along with fifth respondent shall be allowed to act as persons-in-charge of the appapuram Milk Producers Co-operative Society Limited.
( 2 ) THE petitioners and the fifth respondent were the elected members of the Managing Committee of Appapuram Milk Producers Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society ). Their term of office had expired on 10-11-1988. They were being appointed from time to time as persons-in-charge to manage the affairs of the society as there was no election to the society from that date Petitioner), whereas the Paid-Secretary should have the custody of the records of the society as per the relevant bye-law. Here again, there is no material on record to show that the first petitioner was having unlawful custody of the records. It is not clear as to whether the first respondent is finding fault with the petitioner for not handing over the records when his extended term as person-in-charge was over or he was referring to the period during which the first petitioner was the Chairman of the committee of persons-in-charge. Perhaps the only basis for the comment of the first petitioner is the report of the General Manager of Guntur Milk Producers Co-operative Union Limited, dated 8-7-1991. In the said report while recommending the appointment of the petitioners and certain others as persons-in-charge referred to the fact that "ex-Chairman p. I. C. Committee failed to handover the records to the Election Officer" and hence the sixth respondent was appointed as person-in-charge on 18-5-1991. In the very same report the General-Manager stated that the "ex-Chairman P. I. C. Committee has received the records from the Election Officer" and that he is ready to hand over the records to the Election Officer for the ensuring elections. He, therefore, suggested the appointment of the petitioners and others as persons-in-charge. Thus even on 12-8-1991 when the first respondent appointed the petitioners and fifth respondent as persons-in-charge, this information was available to him and he thought it fit to appoint the petitioners and the fifth respondent as persons-in-charge. So, the allegation of the first petitioner having the custody of the records of the society was obviously not considered to be an impediment for reappointing the petitioners as persons-in-charge. In so far as the handing over the records to the official person-in-charge appointed by the first respondent on 18-5-1991 is concerned, it is clear from the communication addressed to the first petitioner by the said person-in-charge, (6th respondent), that the latter took charge only on 5-8-1991. The first petitioner was asked to handover the records and other assets of the society on 12-8-1991. On that very day, as already noticed, the petitioners were appointed as persons-in-charge by an order of the first respondent. Therefore, it appears that the allegation of the first petitioner keeping custody of the records - vague as it is, is only pressed into service to suit the convenience of the first respondent.
( 3 ) THE third reason given is that there are factions among the members of the society and it is felt necessary to give representation to al
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
