( 1 ) THE Guntur Co-operative Urban Bank Limited (for short, the Bank), which was originally registered under the provisions of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1964 was converted into one under the provisions of the A. P. Mutually aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (for short, ap MACS Act) on 6-11-1998. In pursuance of the elections held under the provisions of the AP MACS Act, the petitioner in W. P. No. 12100 of 2004 was elected as Chairman and the petitioners in w. P. No. 14222 of 2004 were elected as the Directors and they assumed charge on 28-5-2004. While so, the impugned order dated 7-7-2004 was issued by the 1st respondent - Registrar of Co-operative societies, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 36-A of the AP MACS act, thereby superseding the Board of directors of the Bank and appointing the district Co-operative Officer, Guntur as the Special Officer/administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank initially for a period of one year.

( 2 ) THE said order is under challenge in these two writ petitions with a common prayer for a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent -Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 7-7-2004 passed under Section 36-A of the A. P. Mutually Aided Co-operative societies Act, 1995 superseding the Board of Directors of the Guntur Co-operative urban Bank Limited and appointing the district Co-operative Officer, Guntur as the Special Officer/administrator to manage the affairs of the said Bank for a period of one year as arbitrary and illegal. Hence, both the writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.

( 3 ) IT is primarily contended by the petitioners that the action of the 1st respondent - Registrar of Co-operative societies was without jurisdiction and beyond his powers under Section 29 of the a. P. MACS Act. It is also contended that even while exercising the powers under section 115-B of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1964 as made applicable to the societies registered under the A. P. MACS Act under Section 36-A, it is incumbent upon the 1st respondent to follow the principles of natural justice by issuing notice to the affected society thereby affording an opportunity to put forth its version. On merits, it is contended that the Bank is financially sound and therefore there was absolutely no justifiable reason to supersede the elected body and to appoint a Departmental Officer at the instance of the Reserve Bank of India

( 4 ) THE District Co-operative Officer, guntur, filed a counter-affidavit stating that eversince the conversion of the Bank under the A. P. Mutually Aided Co-operative societies Act, 1995, the Bank had not been functioning properly and taking advantage of the liberal provisions of the ap MACS Act, 1995 the Chairman and board of Directors of the Bank committed several irregularities and recruited about 78 persons flouting all the rules and the procedure prescribed under law. On the basis of the news reports published in the local dailies, the Registrar (Vigilance)and Enforcement Officer, Guntur conducted surprise check on 19-3-2001 and submitted a report to the Government on 18-5-2001 pointing out various serious irregularities in the process of recruitments. On the basis of the complaint made by one of the depositors forwarded by the Reserve Bank of India, the Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed enquiry by the District Co-operative officer, Guntur as per the provisions of the AP MACS Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder. The District Co-operative officer who is the District Registrar under the A. P. Mutually Aided Co-operative societies Act, 1995 conducted a preliminary enquiry into the alleged irregularities and noticed grave omissions and commissions in the functioning of the Bank. Accordingly, a report was submitted to the Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar of the co-operative Societies Act on 19-3-2003. That apart, the Reserve Bank

Click Here to Read the rest of this document