The principles of natural justice require that a person should be given an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action and a reasoned order should be passed before taking any adverse action.

ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to exercise voting right in ensuing elections to be held on 07.12.2020 to the 4th respondent by suspending the impugned endorsement made in the preliminary voters list dated 04.11.2020 and final voters list dated 23.11.2020, which were made without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 10.11.2020.

2. Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries representing on behalf of respondents 2 and 5 and Sri B. Soma Sekhar, learned counsel representing on behalf of 6th respondent.

3. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that without following the due procedure contemplated under Section 21(3) of A.P. Cooperative Credit Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and without passing a speaking order, the petitioner's name is deleted from the membership and also from the voters list by making a mere endorsement in the preliminary voters list dated 04.11.2020 and final voters list dated 23.11.2020, which is unjust and illegal.

4. In expatiation, learned counsel would submit that as against the publication of preliminary voters list dated 04.11.2020, the petitioner submitted his objections dated 10.11.2020 to the 3 respondent and also submitted copies to respondents 2 and 5. His grievance is that without conducting the due enquiry and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as laid down in the proviso to Section 21(3) of the Act, the 6 respondent simply made an endorsement in the preliminary voters list and final voters list to the effect that certain voters including the petitioner were admitted in contravention of G.O. Ms. No. 74, dated 21.10.2011. He, thus prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries would submit that the preliminary voters list was published on 04.11.2020 calling for the objections and the petitioner without submitting his objections to the Election Officer, i.e., 6 respondent herein, submitted his objections to the 3 respondent, who has nothing to do with the preparation of voters list and hence, a final voters list was prepared on 23.11.2020 and certain bogus voters were deleted from the list as their inclusion was contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 74, dated 21.10.2011. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to seek his remedy before the concerned Tribunal, but not before this Court. Learned counsel for 6th respondent also submitted his arguments in similar lines and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Section 21 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 deals with 'disqualification for membership of the society'. Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 21 reads thus:

"(3) Where any person, who is not eligible for being admitted as member has been admitted as member or where a member who is disqualified to continue as such under sub-section (1) continued as member he shall be removed-

(i) by the Registrar on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society or its federal society or financing bank; or (ii) by the Committee of the society;

Provided that no member shall be removed under this subsection unless he had an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action and where the removal is sought to be made by the Committee, until the resolution of the committee is approved by the Registrar. The order of the Registrar, or as the case may be, a copy of the resolution removing the member as approved by the Registrar, shall be communicated to such person and on such communication he shall be deemed to have ceased to be member of the society."

7. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his objections against the preparation of the preliminary voters list dated 04.11.2020 on 10.11.2020. I Copy of the said objections shows that the same was addressed to the 3rd respondent and copies were marked to the respondents 2 and 5. Then, a perusal of the co