Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD
JAGANMOHAN REDDY,VENKATESAM., JJ.
P. Ramakrishna Reddy and others - Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar of co-operative Societes, & others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 688, 727 and 729 of 1965
Decided on : 30-7-1965
By-law 12 of the Ramachandrapuram Co-operative Central Bank is invalid and illegal, having regard to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1964) and the rules made thereunder.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - BY-LAW 12 OF RAMACHANDRAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK - VALIDITY - WHETHER BY-LAW 12 IS REPUGNANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT (VII OF 1964) AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER - WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IGNORING THE NOMINATIONS ALREADY FILED AND CALLING FOR FRESH NOMINATIONS IS ILLEGAL AND INVALID - WHETHER THE NOMINATIONS FILED AT THE TIME WHEN STAY WAS GRANTED BY THE HIGH COURT, ARE THE ONLY NOMINATIONS UPON WHICH THE ELECTION SHOULD TAKE PLACE AFTER THE STAY HAS BEEN VACATED BY THE HIGH COURT, OR WHETHER THE 2ND RESPONDENT CAN CALL FOR FRESH NOMINATIONS - WHETHER THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HAS NO JURISDICTION TO CALL FOR A MEETING.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st petitioner is a delegate of Artamur Co-opeiative Credit Society to represent the general body of the 3rd respondant, the Ramachandrapuram Co-operative Central Bank, which was shown in the list published on 25-4-1995 by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as serial No. 80 among the Society members. The 2nd petitioner is the delegate of the Vedurupaka Savaram Co-operative Credit Society, shown as voter No. 33 among the society members of the 3rd respondent-bank. The 3rd petitioner is an individual shareholder shown as voter No. 43 among the individual share-holders. It is stated that the Committee of the Bank, the term of which was to expire by 30-9-1964, could not conduct elections for a new Committee, as there were disturbances in the meeting of the general body held on 14-5-1964. After the expiry of the term of the Committee on 31-8-1964, the 1st respondent, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, appointed one Rangarao as a person in charge under section 32(7) of the Act, to manage the affairs of the bank from 1-9-1964 to 30-11-1964. Rangarao tried to conduct election but on account of stay by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Rajahmundry dated 26-11-1964, they could not be held. On 1-12-1964 the Registrar extended the term of Rangarao, the person in charge, till further orders, subject to a maximum period of 30 days. On 5-12-1964, Rangarao prayed to be relieved of the job and suggested to the Registrar for the appointment of a few non-officials selected from various groups to manage the affairs of the Bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that by-law 12 of the Ramachandrapuram Co-operative Central Bank is invalid and illegal, having regard to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The court also held that the action of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies ignoring the nominations already filed and calling for fresh nominations is illegal and invalid. The court further held that the nominations filed at the time when stay was granted by the High Court, are the only nominations upon which the election should take place after the stay has been vacated by the High Court, and that the 2nd respondent cannot call for fresh nominations. The court also held that the 2nd respondent Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to call for a meeting.
Issues: 1. Whether by-law 12 of the Ramachandrapuram Co-operative Central Bank is repugnant to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1964) and the rules made thereunder? 2. Whether the action of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies ignoring the nominations already filed and calling for fresh nominations is illegal and invalid? 3. Whether the nominations filed at the time when stay was granted by the High Court, are the only nominations upon which the election should take place after the stay has been vacated by the High Court, or whether the 2nd respondent can call for fresh nominations? 4. Whether the 2nd respondent Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to call for a meeting?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that by-law 12 of the Ramachandrapuram Co-operative Central Bank is invalid and illegal, having regard to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The court also held that the action of the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies ignoring the nominations already filed and calling for fresh nominations is illegal and invalid. The court further held that the nominations filed at the time when stay was granted by the High Court, are the only nominations upon which the election should take place after the stay has been vacated by the High Court, and that the 2nd respondent cannot call for fresh nominations. The court also held that the 2nd respondent Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to call for a meeting.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions with costs.
JUDGMENT :
JAGANMOAN REDDY, J.:— These three writ petitions raise three common questions, namely, (i) whether by law 12 of the Ramachandrapuram Co-operative Central Bank (hereinafter called “the Bank”) is repugnant to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1964)(herein-after called “the Act”; and the rules made thereunder; (ii) that even if it is held that by-law is not repugnant whether the action of the respondent No. 2, the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ignoring the nominations already filed and calling for fresh nominations is illegal and invalid., i.e. in other words, whether the nominations filed at the time when stay was granted by the High Court, are the only nominations upon which the election should take place after the stay has been vacated by the High Court, or whether the 2nd respondent can call for fresh nominations; and (iii) whether the 2nd respondent Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to call for a meeting. In respect of W.P. 688/65, Sri Babul Reddy has faintly argued that the delegation of powers by the Additional Registrar to the Deputy Registrar to receive nominations was illegal.
2. The facts in W.P. No. 688/65 are as follows:—
The 1st petitioner is a delegate of Artamur Co-opeiative Credit Society to represent the general body of the 3rd respondant, the Ramachandrapuram Co-operative Central Bank, which was shown in the list published on 25-4-1995 by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as serial No. 80 among the Society members. The 2nd petitioner is the delegate of the Vedurupaka Savaram Co-operative Credit Society, shown as voter No. 33 among the society members of the 3rd respondent-bank. The 3rd petitioner is an individual shareholder shown as voter No. 43 among the individual share-holders. It is stated that the Committee of the Bank, the term of which was to expire by 30-9-1964, could not conduct elections for a new Committee, as there were disturbances in the meeting of the general body held on 14-5-1964. After the expiry of the term of the Committee on 31-8-1964, the 1st respondent, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, appointed one Rangarao as a person in charge under section 32(7) of the Act, to manage the affairs of the bank from 1-9-1964 to 30-11-1964. Rangarao tried to conduct election but on account of stay by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Rajahmundry dated 26-11-1964, they could not be held. On 1-12-1964 the Registrar extended the term of Rangarao, the person in charge, till further orders, subject to a maximum period of 30 days. On 5-12-1964, Rangarao prayed to be relieved of the job and suggested to the Registrar for the appointment of a few non-officials selected from various groups to manage the affairs of the Bank.
At the request of the Registrar, Rangarao sent a panel of 10 persons to be nominated as a Committee and out of this list, 6 persons were appointed by the Registrar under sec. 32(7) of the Act, to manage the affairs of the Bank.
3. As the new Act, the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act VII of 1964) had come into force on 1-8-1964, the 1st respondent Registrar of Co-operative Societies, had sent a number of reminders to the 3rd respondent Bank to adopt new model by-laws suggested by him bringing the old by-laws in conformity with the provisions of the new Act. In fact, a writ petition had been filed to direct the 3rd respondent to adopt the new by-laws before elections were thought of, and two of the persons who ultimately were nominated to the Committee of persons in charge, tiled W.P. No. 1465/64 in this Court and obtained stay of the general body meeting sought to be held on 31-8-1964 to adopt the new by-laws. The High Court dismissed that writ petition. As against that an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court being C.A. 321/65. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not established that the Registrar acted unreasonably
