The Registrar has the power to appoint a Chief Executive for disbursing loans if it is brought to his notice that the Committee is not sanctioning loans to the members without a valid reason.

SYED SHAH MOHD. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions represent how the disputes existing among the Directors of Jarugumalli Primary Agricultural co-operative Credit Society Ltd. , Jarugumalli (for short "the Society) can hamper the smooth functioning of the Society. It was established in 1972 and was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act") with registration No. A-57, There are about 4500 members of the Society. In the last elections 8 directors and President were elected. It appears that of the 11 Directors, S Directors are not supporting the President. Consequently the President is not in a position to effectively carry on the business of the Society with the support of 3 Directors. The controversy relates to the non-disbursement of loans to the members, even after passing a resolution for disbursement of the loan, as 8 directors did not agree to authorise the President to offer disbursement of the loan, consequently the members of the Society were put to great hardship. The loans could not be disbursed for 1987-88. The same situation arose in 1988-89 also. It was in those circumstances the Divisional Co-operative officer appointed a Chief Executive under Rule 41-C of the Andbra Pradesh co-operative Societies Rules (for short "the Rules"), for disbursement of the loans for Khariff on 28-10-1988. It is stated that he disbursed the loans before 31-10-1988. Thereafter, in July and August, 1989 loan applications fere cleared by Society for 1989-90 and sent to the Central Bank. In view of the existing situation in the Society, on 16-10-1989 the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued notice under Section 22 of the Act directing. them to disburse the loans to the farmers within two days of the receipt of the notice and intimate him about the disbursement of loans ; it was also mentioned there in that failure to comply with the order would entail further action.

( 2 ) THE President of the Society filed W. P. No. 13028 of 1989, complaining that for the year, 1988-89 the Chief Executive was appointed illegaily and that the authorities are going to repeat the same for the year 1989-90 as well. He, therefore, prays, for a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondent from interfering with the functions of the president and the committee of the Society.

( 3 ) ELEVEN members of the Society filed W. P. No. 15448 of 1989 complaining that due to internal rivalries of the Directors, the Society is not functioning properly, consequently the members are suffering as they are not getting the loans in time. They, therefore, pray for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein (the District Co-operative Officer and the Divisional co-operative Officer (Deputy Registrar) to continue the Chief Executive appointed for the year 1988-89, for the subsequent years also.

( 4 ) W. P. No -. 2332 of 1990 is filed by six members of the Society claiming to represent 300 other members of the Society. Their grievance is that the 2nd respondent therein (the Divisional Co-operative Offices), Kandukur, prakasam District, having issued notice under Section 22 of the Act has not taken further action in the matter. They, therefore, seek a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to take further action against the Managing committee under Section 22 of the Act.

( 5 ) AS the facts and circumstances in these writ petitions are common, they are beard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

( 6 ) SRI M. V. Ramana Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the president of the Society submits that the Divisional Co-operative Officer had no power to take action under Rule 41-C without complying with the provisions of the Act. He, therefore, prays that a direction be issued to the respondents not to take action under Rule 41-C except in accordance with law.

( 7 ) SRI Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the members of the Society in W. P. No. 15448 of 1989, says that as the disputes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document