Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.R.LAKSHAMANAN
Large-sized Co-operative Society Ltd., Medak - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Medak - Respondent
Decided On : 03-08-79
ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964 - SECTION 31(2)(A), 31(2)(B), 32(7)(A) - EXTENSION OF TERM OF MANAGING COMMITTEE - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - COMMITTEE MUST BE VALIDLY CONSTITUTED - EXTENSION OF TERM MUST BE BY SPECIFIC ORDER - ORAL INSTRUCTIONS INSUFFICIENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the President of a large-sized Co-operative Society, challenged an order appointing a person-in-charge to manage the Society's affairs, arguing that the Managing Committee's term had been extended by oral instructions and that the order was therefore illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order was valid as there was no legally constituted committee in existence at the time it was passed. The court found that the Managing Committee's term had expired and that no order had been passed under Section 31(2)(b) of the Act to extend its term. The court also held that the expression "committee" in Section 32(7)(a) of the Act should be interpreted as a validly constituted committee and that oral instructions were insufficient to extend the term of the Managing Committee.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order appointing a person-in-charge to manage the Society's affairs was illegal. 2. Whether the Managing Committee's term had been extended by oral instructions. 3. Whether the expression "committee" in Section 32(7)(a) of the Act should be interpreted as a validly constituted committee.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned order was valid as there was no legally constituted committee in existence at the time it was passed. 2. The court found that the Managing Committee's term had expired and that no order had been passed under Section 31(2)(b) of the Act to extend its term. 3. The court also held that the expression "committee" in Section 32(7)(a) of the Act should be interpreted as a validly constituted committee and that oral instructions were insufficient to extend the term of the Managing Committee.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order was valid and that there were no merits in the petition.
( 1 ) THIS is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus seeking a declaration that the order dated 3-9-1978 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Medak is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was the President of the large-sized Co-operative Society Limited at Medak, referred to hereinafter merely as "the Society".
( 3 ) THE Society was registered under Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The Managing Committee of the petitioner-Society comprised eight members. The Committee was duty elected on 29/06/1975. As per the applicable bye-law the term of the Managing Committee should expire after completion of three years period by 28/06/1978. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that the Managing Committee had been demanding the 1st respondent to conduct the elections. The election was not conducted by the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent declared that the elections would be conducted soon and that in the meanwhile the present managing committee can continue to function and as such they have been continuing.
( 4 ) IN the capacity of themselves being the managing committee they all applied for loans from the Co-operative Central Bank at Sangareddy and the loans were granted and also released. These loans were distributed to the respective members. The loans were released by the Bank to the petitioner in the capacity of himself being President of the petitioner-Society on 22-8-78 and 24-8-78. While so, the 1st respondent passed orders dated 3-9-1978 by which Sri K. Prakasarao, 2nd respondent Co-operative Sub-Registrar, Medak was appointed as a part-time person-in-charge to manage the affairs of the large seized Co-operative Society for a period of three months from the date of taking charge of the Society. It is this order that was impugned in this writ petition. A counter-affidavit was filed.
( 5 ) SRI Subhashan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law, and the committee is entitled to continue in office as per the G. Os. issued from time to time, by the Government. As against this the learned Government Pleader contended that by the time when the impugned order was passed there was no legally constituted committee of the Society and as such the 1st respondent is well within his limits in appointing the 2nd respondent as the person-in-charge.
( 6 ) THE point therefore that arises for consideration is whether the order dated 3-9-1978 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Medak, 1st respondent herein, under Section 32 (7) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, referred to herein merely as "the Act, is liable to be set aside as contended for by the petitioner?
( 7 ) THE impugned order was passed on 3-9-1978. The 1st respondent as per the impugned order was of the view of that there was no legally constituted committee for the Society in question as the Committee then in office became functus officio, and as it is not possible to conduct elections of the members of the committee of the Society immediately, and as it is expedient to provide for the management of the affairs of the Society till an elected committee assumes office, the 1st respondent in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under clause (a) sub-section (7) of Section 32 of the Act appointed the 2nd respondent as a part-time person-in-charge to look after the affairs of the Society for a period of three months from the date of taking charge of the Society.
( 8 ) SRI Subhashan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-committee is entitled to continue in office till the end of the year 1978 and thereafter till the end of March. 1979, as per the G. Os. issued from time to time. The learned Government Pleader contended on the other hand that the G. Os. only authorised the concerned authori
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
