IMPORTANT POINT
Law does not compel performance of an impossible obligation.

1. In this Writ Petition two orders - both dt.09.04.2015 viz., one passed by 3rd respondent forming an opinion that there is no Managing Committee for 4th respondent Society and appointing a person in-charge to manage the affairs of said Society, and another order passed by 2nd respondent declaring that 1st petitioner ceased to be the delegate of 4th respondent-Society in the 5th respondent-Financing Bank and Chairman of 5th respondent-Bank and consequently nominating the Vice-Chairman of 5th respondent-Bank as the Chairman of the said bank, are questioned.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION

2. The petitioner nos.1 to 6 are Members of the Managing Committee of 4th respondent-Society and 1st petitioner is also its Chairman. By virtue of being the Chairman of 4th respondent-Society, the 1st petitioner automatically became a delegate of the said Society in the 5th respondent, it’s financing Bank. He also became the Chairman of the Managing Committee of 5th respondent-Bank. These events happened in 2013.

3. The 6th respondent, who is a former Member of Legislative Assembly and who is alleged to belong to a political group opposed to the petitioners, addressed a letter dt.16.03.2015 to the District Collector, Kadapa making certain allegations in relation to the running of affairs of 4th respondent-Society, and sought enquiry into the said allegations against Directors/Members of the Managing Committee of 4th respondent-Society.

4. On receipt of the said complaint, the District Collector directed the 2nd respondent to cause an enquiry made into the allegations leveled by 6th respondent against the Directors of 4th respondent-Society.

5. The Chief Executive Officer of 4th respondent-Society then addressed a letter to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Proddutur informing that corrective measures were taken pursuant to an Inspection Report under Section 52 of The Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘The Act’). He also intimated about the action taken by 4th respondent-Society to the General Body of the said Society in a meeting held in this behalf and submitted rectification report.

6. Thereafter, 3rd respondent issued a notice dt.20.03.2015 to the Chief Executive Officer of the 4th respondent-Society and to 1st petitioner, who was the Chairman/President of 4th respondent-Society, stating that they were responsible for the irregularities and called for their explanation within one (01) week from the date of receipt of the said notice. Another notice was also issued by 3rd respondent on 20.03.2015 to 1st petitioner calling his explanation in respect of another allegation mentioned therein.

7. On 08.04.2015, the 1st petitioner submitted his explanation to the first notice denying the allegations therein and stating that he did not commit any irregularity, and even otherwise he cannot be held responsible. He requested 3rd respondent to drop further action against him. He also submitted another explanation to the other show-cause notice issued by 3rd respondent.

8. According to petitioners, on the same day, the Managing Committee of 4th respondent-Society met. Eleven of its Directors attended the meeting and they unanimously passed a resolution about the stand of the Society with reference to notices dt.20.03.2015 issued by 3rd respondent and also approving the actions taken by the Managing Committee with regard to attending to the defects as pointed out in the inspection held under Section 52 of the Act.

9. Out of the thirteen Managing Committee Members in the Managing Committee of 4th respondent-Society it appears seven Members (who are respondent nos. 8 to 14 in the Writ Petition) tendered their resignations on 09.04.2015, and allegedly submitted their resignation letters to the Chief Executive Officer of 4th respondent-Society.

10. The Chief Executive Officer of 4th respondent-Society is alleged to have addressed a letter dt.09.04.2015 to 3rd respondent enclosing copies of resignations allegedly submitted by th