The Tribunal's failure to provide a separate procedure for diverging opinions violates the 1995 Act; such actions deemed ultra vires without explicit review provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Challa Gunaranjan, J.

Both writ petition and as well as writ appeal raise a common question with regard to the procedure to be adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal”) for the purpose of deciding the disputes enumerated under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short, “the 1995 Act”), more particularly, in case of difference of opinion expressed by the Tribunal consisting of two members, therefore, these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Facts in brief are as follows:

The petitioner initially was registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the 1964 Act”) and later got converted as Society under the 1995 Act. As per its bye-laws, the managing committee consists 19 Directors, who were required to be elected from amongst the eligible members. In that view, in order to elect three of the Directors, notification, dated 18.08.2022, was issued proposing to conduct elections on 30.08.2022. The nomination of 3^rd respondent came to be rejected and eventually the election was concluded and accordingly, three members came to be declared elected as Directors. Eventually, the 3^rd respondent filed E.O.P.No.56 of 2022 on the file of the Tribunal, under Section 37 (2) of the 1995 Act, to declare rejection of his nomination as null and void and consequently, to set aside the elections held on 30.08.2022, and further to direct for conducting fresh elections. The said E.O.P. was heard by the Tribunal consisting of judicial member and administrative member, who ultimately, by order, dated 21.07.2023, differed in opinions, the judicial member rendered elaborate order with reasoning dismissing the E.O.P., however, the administrative member, expressing opinion otherwise without any reasons, differed to concur with the order of the judicial member. In view of the divergent opinions expressed, ultimately, the matter has been referred to Full Bench consisting of three members for disposal of the case, in terms of Rule 20(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (for short, “the 1994 Rules”). Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent had preferred application vide S.R.No.359 of 2023, with a prayer to re-open the matter enabling to send the disputed signatures of petitioner therein on Ex.A13 and Ex.B2 to the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory at Mangalagiri for expert opinion. The said application came to be rejected as not maintainable, vide order, dated 21.09.2023. The 3^rd respondent challenged the aforesaid two orders and also non-constitution of Full Bench in terms of Rule 20(4) of the 1994 Rules in W.P.No.26409 of 2023. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by order, dated 15.03.2024, directing the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies to act upon the request of Deputy Registrar for the purpose of constitution of Full Bench to decide the E.O.P. in terms of Rule 20(4) of the 1994 Rules. In this background, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.No.15652 of 2024 challenging the vires of Rule 20(4) of the 1994 Rules to the extent of reference being made to Full Bench in case of divergent opinions expressed by two members to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides challenging the order of the learned single Judge, dated 15.03.2023, passed in W.P.No.26409 of 2023, by preferring Writ Appeal No.89