There is no provision under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 which prohibits the appointment of the wife of an ex-President facing an enquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act as the person in-charge of a co-operative society.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners herein, who claim to be residents of Pothunuru village and members of the Bhogeswara Swamy Visala Sahakara Parapathi Sangham, Pothunuru Village, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District-6th respondent, seek to challenge G.O.Rt. No. 451, Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.II) Department, dated 16.07.2021, insofar as appointment of 7th respondent herein as Chairperson of person in-charge committee (PIC) for management of affairs of 6th respondent is concerned, as violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act 1964’).

2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that 7th respondent is wife of one Dulipalla Nagendra Vara Prasad, who worked as President of the Managing Committee of 6th respondent society during the years 2013 to 2019 and on the allegation of abusing his position during his tenure and misappropriation funds of the societies by committing grave irregularities and illegalities, enquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act, 1964 is pending against him. It is further stated that due to political pressure, 1st respondent issued the impugned G.O.Rt. No. 451, dated 16.07.2021 appointing 7th respondent as Chairperson of PIC for management of affairs of 6th respondent society by invoking the provisions of Section 32(7)(a)(i) and 32(7)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1964 and relaxing continuation of existing committee by invoking Section 123 thereof. Hence the Writ Petition.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and contending inter-alia as follows:

There is no violation of any provisions of the Act, 1964 in respect of appointment of 7th respondent as Chairperson of PIC of 6th respondent society. The discretion given to respondents 1 and 2 under Section 32(7) of the Act, 1964 is wide without fetters or restriction. Enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, 1964 on the affairs of 6th respondent society was completed and report was received in the office of 4th respondent and the same was submitted to 3rd respondent on 29.06.2021 for issuance of review, and soon after receipt of review, independent inquiry would be taken up by 4th respondent before initiation of surcharge proceedings under Section 60 (1) of the Act, 1964. Inspection under Section 52 of the Act, 1964 was completed and surcharge order under Section 60(1) of the Act, 1964 was passed against the Board of Directors of 6th respondent society, including husband of 7th respondent. G.O.Rt. No. 451, dated 16.07.2021 was issued with a purpose of replacing the official persons-in-charge and to reappoint suitable non-official persons-in-charge with modifications, if any, needed in the persons-in-charge committee due to local exigencies like death/resignation/compliance to eligibility criteria and subject to satisfaction of their credential, and exercise of power under Section 123 of the Act, 1964 by the State cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. In the absence of any allegation of any malice, etc. against 7th respondent, the petitioners have no legal right to challenge her appointment. 4th respondent will initiate follow up action in respect of recovery of surcharge amount pursuant to Section 52 inspection report, and in respect of enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, follow up action will be taken up in due course.

There are strong and compelling reason for issuing G.O.Rt. No. 451, dated 16.07.2021, pursuant thereto, 7th petitioner and two others were appointed as persons-in-charge, after considering their eligibility criteria, and 18 items check list designed in accordance with the Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder would show that 7th respondent and 2 others are eligible for the respective positions, and they have already assumed charge on 31.07.2021 itself. Petitioners have no legal right to question the same on the ground of the alleged misappropriation of funds by husband of 7th responde