Back
1990 Supreme(AP) 144
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.S.M.QUADRI
Konda Venkayamma - Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Bamboo Workers Co-operative Cottage Industrial Society Ltd. - Respondent
W.P.No 13878/89
Decided On : 03-26-90
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. G. Rama Rao,Mr. Syed Shareef
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Art.14 and A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, Secs. 6 (2) (b) and 19 (1) and (3) Applications made by some persons for membership in a Society - Rejection of applications by Society on the ground of non-eligibility without communicating resolution of society - Not valid.
Held : A combined reading of Sec. 6 (2)(b) and Sec. 19(1) of the Act makes it clear that at the time of the registration of the Society, the members who sign the· application for provisional membership should not be less than ten and each of them should be a member of a different family and that everyone of them shall under Sec. 19(1) the, Act be eligible to become a member, not that far admission as a member of any society, an individual should satisfy, the requirements of Sec.6 (2) (b) of the Act.
There is nothing in Sec. 19 of the Act to suggest the eligibility criteria for being a member includes that the intending member should not have any member of the family as existing member of the Society. The provisions of Sec. 6 (2) (b) cannot be read in Sec. 19 as condition of eligibility, so the petitioners are not ineligible to become members of the Society on the ground that their members of the family are the existing members of the Society.
The provisions of Sec. 19 (3) show that the intention of the Legislature is not only to encourage membership of Cooperative Society but provide remedy when it is refused by a Society without sufficient cause, but also to do away the practice of keeping the intending member in awaiting for indefinite period of providing that if within the specified period on decision is taken by the Society on the application of membership or if taken but not communicated, then the society shall be deemed to have admitted him as a member on the expiration of such period. Therefore, the Society is bound to enter the names of the petitioners in the register as deemed members of the Society.
W.P. Allowed
( 2 ) 14 persons including the petitioners herein wanted to seek membership of R-l society and presented an application on 15-3-1985 to the R-1 society. As the R-l society refused to receive their applications, they sent applications on 10-5-1985 to the second respondent. By communication dated 27-5-1985 the second respondent directed them to make applications to R-l society again and send the duplicates to the second respondent. Accordingly applications were sent by them on 30-11-1985. The second respondent made an enquiry and found that they were bamboo workers and eligible to be admitted as Members of R-l society. As they did not receive any communication they made further representation to respondents 2 and 3. It is stated that according to the information of Petitioners, the second respondent directed the R-l society to admit the Petitioners as they are eligible to be admitted as members. But the R-1 society resolved to admit only five out of 14 persons with some conditions. The remaining nine persons who were not admitted as members in the R-1 society, filed this writ petition. The action of the first respondent-society is challenged as being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that by virtue of Section 19 (3) of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act VII of 1964 (the Act) the petitioners have become the members of the R-1 society and that their names ought to have been entered into the records of the R-1 society. Hence they filed the writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat them as members of the R-1 society and to make necessary entries in its records.
( 3 ) THE President of the R-1 society filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the R-1 society. It is stated therein that the petitioners herein and five others made a representation to the second respondent complaining about their non-admission as members of the R-1 society. The second respondent held an enquiry and by his proceedings dated 8-1-1988 informed that five persons named therein should be admitted as members of the R-1 society as they were identified as members of different families and also engaged in the manufacture of bamboo products. It is however stated that the petitioners herein are members of the families of the existing members of the R-1 society, therefore they could not be admitted as members of the r-1 society.
( 4 ) THE third respondent filed a counter stating inter-alia that after enquiry the General Manager (the second respondent) directed, by his proceedings dated 8-1-1988, to admit five persons as members of the R-1 society who belong to different families as per the provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) of the act. Accordingly a resolution dated 21-4-1988 was passed by the R-1 society authorising its President to admit the said five persons as members subject to certain conditions. It is stated that the request of the petitioners could not be considered in view of Section 6 ( 2) (b) of the Act. It is further stated that the application of the petitioners was not in order and therefore they cannot claim to be deemed members of the R-l society.
( 5 ) THE petitioners filed a reply affidavit to the above said counter-affidavits enclosing a list of Annexure-A thereto mentioning the names of forty persons who were admitted as members of the R-l society eventhough one or more of their family members were existing members of the R-1 society.
( 6 ) SRI G. Ramarao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the objections raised in the counter regarding the eligibility of the petitioners to become members of the R-1 society in view of the provisions of section 6 (2) (b) of the Act, are untenable as that Section relates only to provisional registration of a Society. In any event, the learned counsel for t
