1. This writ petition was filed by 19 writ petitioners, challenging their removal from the membership of the second respondent – The Fishermen Co-operative Society as contrary to the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), and particularly, Sections 21(1)(g) and 21(c) of the Act read with Rule 20 of the Rules made under the Act.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent-Society removed all the petitioners from the primary membership of the Society by passing a resolution in the general body meeting held on 10.10.2007. Subsequently, in the month of November, 2007, the Society through its President communicated the said decision to the petitioners individually and also to the first respondent-The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Anantapur, by a letter dated 12.12.2007, informing him that the share capital sent through the money order was refused by the petitioners and the same was credited to the Society account. It is their further case that in the communication sent to the first respondent, it was stated by the Society that since the petitioners did not question their removal even after lapse of two months after receipt of notice, they are communicating to the first respondent. The correspondence shows that no notice was issued before passing the resolution dated 10.10.2007. As per the provisions of Section 21(3) of the Act, an opportunity must be given to the members of the Society and since no notice was issued before the general body resolution dated 10.10.2007, the petitioners approached the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad in C.T.A.No.105 of 2008 in May, 2008 and the resolution was suspended in I.A.No.450 of 2008 on 06.06.2008. Ultimately, the said C.T.A was dismissed on 03.10.2008 on erroneous grounds. It is the case of the petitioners that the observations made by the Tribunal in its order dated 03.10.2008 while upholding the action of their removal as members are unsustainable in law. As per Section 21(1)(g) of the Act, the petitioners should have failed to attend two consecutive general body meetings in two years without leave of their absence. In the absence of such failure, the petitioners cannot be removed from the membership of the Society. Even as per Rule 20 of the Act, the Registrar shall give an opportunity before the proposed action of removal of members from the primary membership of the Society and the Tribunal failed to consider these provisions and hence, the resolution of the general body dated 10.10.2007 and the order of the Tribunal dated 30.10.2008 are unsustainable in law.

3. The second respondent filed its counter admitting the removal of the petitioners from the primary membership of the Society in the general body meeting held on 10.10.2007 on the ground that the petitioners had failed to attend two consecutive general body meetings in two years without leave of absence and the petitioners have become disqualified to continue as members of the second respondent-Society and also on the ground that the petitioners were acting detrimental to the interest of the Society and its members and they have become disqualified as members of the Society by virtue of Section 21(1)(g) of the Act. In order to protect the interest of the Society, a notice of intention to remove the petitioners was sent to the petitioners by certificate of posting requesting for their explanation and hence the contention of the petitioners that no notice was issued is baseless. The petitioners instead of submitting their explanation had made a representation to the District Collector making certain serious allegations of embezzlement of the Society funds by the President of the Society. The District Collector forwarded the said representation to the first respondent and a detailed enquiry was conducted by the first respondent by appointing the Fisheries Development Officer as the enquiry officer. The enquiry report reveals that the petit