Back
2012 Supreme(AP) 400
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Guttha Narsimha Reddy, Nalgonda Dist., & Others
Versus
Dist. Coop. Officer, Nalgonda, & Others
W.P. No. 27301 of 2011
Decided on : 10-04-2012
For the Petitioners:P. Gangaiah Naidu, Sr. Councel, for V. Ramchander Goud, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, G.P. for Cooperation, R2 & R5, P. Sri Harsha Reddy, R3, S. Niranjan Redd, R4, E. Sambasivapratap, Advocates.
Headnote:
Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act -Sections 23,21– Election – Disqualification – Petitioners are members of Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Society,2nd respondent herein, 4th respondent is the Chairman of the Society. Managing Committee of the Society has 10 Directors. term of Office of Directors is 5 years, in such a way, that on 30th June of every year, the term of two of them would expire – The resultant vacancies are to be filled by the General Body – Two women members of the Managing Committee was to expire term of the 4th respondent, as President, was also to expire on that date. An Election Officer was appointed, and he, in turn, issued a notification, proposing to conduct the election to the vacancies of Directors and of the President. However, the Election Officer postponed the election, on the ground that he has fallen sick. petitioners state that, on account of their failure to conduct elections, 4th respondent and the entire Managing Committee, not only ceased to be operative, but also have incurred disqualification to be elected for the next term, by operation of Sections 21(6) and 23 of the Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act seek declaration to that effect and direction to the 1st respondent to convene General Body meeting of the Society for appointing an ad hoc Board for the specific purpose of conducting elections –Held existence of an elected committee is almost a lifeline of a cooperative society. Every effort must be made to ensure that a committee elected once is permitted to complete its term. It is only when the Committee defeats the provisions of the Act through its acts and omissions that its term can be brought to an end before it expires. An accidental omission on the part of a third party, in the matter of carrying out the mandate of the Managing Committee, can not at all be permitted to liquidate the committee itself and to attach disqualification to its members. If two interpretations are possible, of the same provision, the one which respects the mandate of the General Body must be chosen petitioners do not dispute that within the earliest possible time, from the date on which the election scheduled earlier was postponed, the members as well as the President, have been elected. If they find that the election of the Directors or the President, is contrary to law, they can avail the remedy as provided. Hence, writ petition is dismissed –Petition of Dismissed.
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstance stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring that the present Board of Directors of 2nd respondent Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperation Society, Urumadla Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District cease to hold office as Directors and also incurred disqualification to contest elections as per Sections 23 and 21 (6) of Act 30 of 1985 and that the 4th respondent ceased to represent the 2nd respondent Primary Society before the 3rd respondent Federation and also contest any election in 3rd respondent Federation and consequently direct the 1st respondent to convene general Body meeting of 2nd respondent Society for appointing adhoc board for specific purpose of conducting elections to the entire Board of Directors and election of Chairman to the 2nd respondent Society.)
The petitioners are members of Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Society, Urumadla Village, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District, the 2nd respondent herein, (for short ‘the Society’). The 4th respondent is the Chairman of the Society. The Managing Committee of the Society has 10 Directors. The term of Office of Directors is 5 years, in such a way, that on 30th June of every year, the term of two of them would expire. The resultant vacancies are to be filled by the General Body.
The term of the two women members of the Managing Committee was to expire on 30.06.2011. The term of the 4th respondent, as President, was also to expire on that date. An Election Officer was appointed, a nd he, in turn, issued a notification, proposing to conduct the election to the vacancies of Directors a nd of the President, on 29.06.2011. However, on 26.06.2011, the Election Officer postponed the election, on the ground that he has fallen sick. The petitioners state that, on account of their failure to conduct elections before 30.06.2011, the 4th respondent and the entire Managing Committee, not only ceased to be operative, but also have incurred disqualification to be elected for the next term, by operation of Sections 21(6) and 23 of the Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’). They seek declaration to that effect a nd direction to the 1st respondent to convene General Body meeting of the Society for appointing an ad hoc Board for the specific purpose of conducting elections.
The District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, the 1st respondent, filed a counter-affidavit. He admitted the facts pleaded by the petitioners to the extent that the Election Officer postponed the elections a nd that by 30.06.2011, elections could not be held to the Offices of two Directors a nd of the President. He further stated that the failure to conduct elections was not due to any lapse on the part of the Society or the Managing Committee, but on account of the illness of the Election Officer. He has also stated that the General Body of the Society met on 29.06.2011, and took stock of the situation. It is further stated that the Managing Committee, through its resolution, dated 15.07.2011, appointed one Sri G.Devender Reddy, as Election Officer, and that the latter issued a notification, dated 16.07.2011, for conducting elections. The 1st respondent stated that in the elections so conducted, two women Directors and the President of the Society were elected. According to him, the disqualification provided for under Section 145 of the Act does not operate automatically, a nd that once the Society and its Managing Committee made sincere efforts to conduct the elections before expiry of the term of two Directors, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate lapse on their part.
Respondents 2 a nd 4 filed counter-affidavits almost on the same lines.
Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Act clearly mandates t
