The supersession of a Managing Committee under Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act is valid if based on findings of non-compliance with lawful orders.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of our brother, Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Writ Petn. No.3260 of 1968, D/- 30-1-1969, dismissing the petition filed by the appellants herein under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the order of the Government in G.O.Ms. No.1400, Food and Agriculture (Co - operative V) Department, dated 9-7-1968, confirming the order of the Regional Joint Registrar in Rc. No.47168/67-12, dated 31-12-1967.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these. The appellants are members of the Managing Committee of the Toddy Tappers' Co - operative Society, Munapally Village, in Medak District. The Managing Committee of the Society, which the appellants represent, received a notice on 15-11-1967 from the Regional Joint Registrar of Co - operative Societies, to show cause why the said Committee should not be superseded. In this notice, the grounds on which the supersession was proposed, were also stated. The explanation of the Managing Committee was submitted by its President on 23-11-1967. The Regional Joint Registrar, after considering the explanation of the Committee, came to the conclusion that the Managing Committee was not functioning properly and that, the members of the Managing Committee were wilfully disobeying the orders of the Deputy Registrar and also acting against the provisions of the Act and the departmental instructions.
He then, in exercise of his powers under S.34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co - operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), superseded the Managing Committee with immediate effect, by his impugned order dated 23-12-1967, and appointed a Senior Inspector of the Co - operative Societies as part - time Special Officer, empowering him to exercise all the powers of the Managing Committee under S.34(3) of the Act. That order of the Regional Joint Registrar was carried in appeal by the President of the Society, and the Government saw no reason to interfere with the order of the Regional Joint Registrar and dismissed the appeal, by its order dated 9-7-1968. It is that order of the Government that led to the filing of the writ petition, and preferring of this appeal, as the writ petition was dismissed by our learned brother.

3. Mr. Upendralal Waghray, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that one of the grounds on which the Managing Committee was superseded, was that it failed to comply with the directions given by the Deputy Registrar under R.7 - A of the Rules framed under the Hyderabad Co - operative Societies Act, 1952 in regard to the admission of some members; that, the 1952 Act itself was repealed by the present Act under which action has been taken by the Regional Joint Registrar, and so long as there is no provision corresponding to R.7 - A in the new Act or the rules made thereunder, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to invoke S.34 and supersede the Managing Committee. It is also contended by him that, notwithstanding the saving provision (S.132) introduced in the new Act, the Action taken by the Regional Joint Registrar under R.7 - A of the old Act directing the Managing Committee to enrol some members is no longer operative after the repeal of that Act and as such, that direction given under R.7 - A cannot be made a ground for superseding the Managing Committee.

4. It may be pointed out that the Managing Committee was not proposed to be superseded only on the ground that the order issued in exercise of the powers conferred under R.7 - A have been disobeyed by the Managing Committee, but also on other grounds. The following are the grounds stated in the show - cause notice issued to the Mana