The District Collector has the jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the order of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, registering a society, as the Divisional Co-operative Officer is subordinate to the District Collector within the meaning of Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - REVISIONAL POWERS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - REGISTRATION OF A SOCIETY - CANCELLATION OF LICENCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 77 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964.
Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between two toddy tappers' cooperative societies in Hyderabad, India, regarding the registration of a new society (the petitioner society) and the cancellation of the license granted to it. The District Collector, Co-Operation, had revised the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Hyderabad West, and set aside the registration of the petitioner society, directing the restoration of the license issued to the existing society (the 5th respondent society).
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the District Collector had the jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, registering the petitioner society, as the Divisional Co-operative Officer was subordinate to the District Collector within the meaning of Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The court also held that the order registering the petitioner society was not simpliciter an administrative order but was amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Collector had the jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, registering the petitioner society? 2. Whether the order registering the petitioner society was an administrative order and not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and held that the District Collector, on whom the powers of revision of the Registrar under Section 77 were conferred, was competent to revise the order of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, who was subordinate to him. The court reasoned that the fact that the Divisional Co-operative Officer had passed the order as a Registrar did not make him not subordinate to the District Collector. 2. The court held that the order registering the petitioner society was not simpliciter an administrative order but was amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 77 of the Act. The court relied on the wording of Section 77 and the fact that an appeal was provided against a decision under Section 6 or refusal to register a society under Section 7, indicating that all other proceedings not covered by Section 76(1) were amenable to revision under Section 77.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner society, upholding the order of the District Collector, Co-Operation, which had set aside the registration of the petitioner society and directed the restoration of the license issued to the 5th respondent society.

GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is placed before us in view of the order of reference made by our learned brother Raght vir J,, on the ground that there is conflict of opinion between the Judgment of Chinnappa Reddy. J , in writ petition Nos. 4818 of 1975 and 4s70 of 1975 dated 21-10 1975 and the judgment of kuppuswami, J,. in writ petition No 4735 of 1975 dated 18-12-195. with regard to the revlsonal powers of the Registrar under Sec. 77 of the Andhra Pradesh co-Operative Societies Act (Act ; vii of 1964), (hereinafter called the Act)

( 2 ) IN this writ petition the Toddy tappers Co-Operative Socitey Devar tamjal. Medchai Taluk, Hyderabad West district, questions the order of the Dlstrict Collector, (Co-Operation), Hyderabad in R C. No I 9695/75-B dated 16-12-1975.

( 3 ) ON 2-9-1959, the Geeta Parlsramika co-Operative Society, Devaryamjal. Hyderabad West District, the 5th respondent herein, was registered with fourteen members by the Deputy registrar Co-Operative Soclecle. Hyderabad West, the 4th respondent herein. The Devar Yamjal Toddy Shop Was allotted to the society. By the year 1975, five members died leaving only nine members on the register. The minimum number of members for registering a society is ten and If the membership of a society falls below ten, the society has to be wound up u. ider Sec, 64 of the Act, in addition it is staded that the 5th respondent society did not maintain accounts properly ; So the 4th respondent Issued a notice to the 5th respondent-society on 2-9-1975 proposing to wind up that society under sec. 64 of the Act, on the ground that the society was not functioning properly. The petitioner society was formed and registered by the 4th respondent on 8 9-1975 and an excise licence wit issued in the name of the president of the Petitioner-society on 11-9-1975. Against the order of the 4th respondent registering the peti. loner-ioclety, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the District Collector (co operative)Hyderabad, the 2nd respondenc herei n who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the 4th respondent registering the petitioner society. That order was passed by the 2nd. espondent herein without giving notice to the petitioner society. Questioning tha. order the petitioner-society filed writ petition No, 5283 of 1975 and it was allowed by our earned brother Raghuvir, J. , on the sole ground that it was passed without notice to he petitioner-society. He remitted the entire matter to the District collector (Co-Operation-, Hyderabad for fresh dhposal af er giving notice to the petitoner society. There after the district Collector issued no ice to the petitioner society and passed the Impugned order on 16-12-1975. The Collector to" held in his order that slnce the 5th respondent society was not wound up and was still in exis ence, the Deputy Registrar co-Operative Societies, Hyderabad west should not have regisrered the petitioner society. He further he d that toddy Tappers Co-Ope atlve Societies are given preferential treatment by the government in the allotment of Sendhi shops and for a specified area only one toddy Tapoers co-Operative Society is registered in order to avoid unhealthy competition, and to promote welfare of the Toddy taopers He observed that the Divisional co-Operative Officer, Hyderabad should not have registered the petitioner-society particularly in view of section 7 (1) (c) of the Act, and since he had registered it under an erroneous impression that the 5th respondent-society was not in existence the registration of the petitioner-society and the consequent grant of licence to it cannot be sustained and both had to be cancelled. In the result, he directed that the licence issued to the 5th respondent-society by the superintendent of Excise, North, had to be restored.

( 4 ) SRI Babulu Reddi, the learned counsel for the petitioner attacks the said order on four grounds First, the collector Co-Operafion has no power to revise the order of the Deputy R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis