(Per G. Bhavani Prasad, J.)

Writ Petition Nos.14870 and 22836 of 2009 arise out of a challenge to the respective notices issued under Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act").

2. The petitioners in W.P. No.14870 of 2009 contended that respondents 3 to 6 therein and the petitioners were elected as Directors with the 1t petitioner being further elected as the President of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Renikunta, Nalgonda District on 23-10-2005. Respondents 3 to 5 were claimed to have absented themselves for three consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee, while the 6th respondent was claimed to have become a defaulter in respect of two loans in spite of demand notices. The petitioners claimed respondents 3 to 6 to have been, therefore, disqualified to hold the offices under Sections 21-B and 21-A of the Act respectively, which was brought to the notice of the District Co-operative Officer and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by the 1st petitioner-President. The resolution of the Managing Committee, dated 30-06-2009 removing respondents 3 to 6 from the Managing Committee, as they ceased to hold the office, and filling up the vacancies through cooption by a majority of eight Directors, was also communicated for necessary action. The petitioners stated that due to the disputes between the 1st petitioner, the President and the 7th respondent, the Vice-President, a letter appeared to have been given by five Directors along with respondents 3 to 6 under Section 34-A of the Act on 09-07-2009 proposing to move a no confidence motion against the pt petitioner. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a notice, dated 09-07-2009 under Section 34-A (3) of the Act read with Rule 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short "the Rules") convening a meeting of the Managing Committee on 30-07-2009, which was served on persons related to the petitioners on 22-07-2009. The notice was not served on the petitioners and no enquiries were made about the availability of the petitioners apart from the copy of the proposed no confidence motion not being enclosed to the notice. The service of notice was in violation of the minimum period of fifteen clear days prescribed by See. 34-A (3) of the Act and any service or tender of a notice to the relatives or family members is no service and no confidence motion cannot be sustained, as respondents 3 to 6 ceased to hold office, though it was held in Gaddampalli jagpal Reddy v. District Collector, Nalgonda (1) 2008 (3) ALT 236 = 2008 (2) ALD 616 that disqualification or cessation is not automatic, but is subject to a decision by the General Body of the society. Hence, the petitioners sought for setting aside the issuance of the notice under Section 34-A of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. This Court passed an interim order on 24-07-2009 in W.P.M.P. No.19521 of 2009 permitting the proposed meeting to go on to discuss the no confidence motion but directing that the decision that will be taken in the meeting shall not be given effect to.

4. The official respondents 1 and 2 claimed the letters about the disqualification of respondents 3 to 6 under Sections 21-B and 21-A of the Act respectively to have been received only on 14-07-2009 by the 2nd respondent who referred the same to the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer, Bhongiri for enquiry. Claiming to have received the letter proposing to move a no confidence motion on 09-07-2009 and to have issued the notice in question in consequence, it was stated by respondents 1 and 2 that the notices of the petitioners were served on a relative of the 1t petitioner and brother of the 2nd petitioner on 23-07-2009 respectively, as the petitioners were unavailable. While claiming the notice to be as per the Statute and the Statutory rules, respondents 1 and 2 claimed the copies of the notice to have bee