Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TS) 9349
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 6404 OF 2024
Interpretation of the mandatory provisions of Section 34-A of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, regarding the issuance of a notice for a No Confidence Motion.
Headnote:
Notice - No Confidence Motion - Interpretation of Section 34-A of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected President of a Cooperative Society, challenges the notice for a No Confidence Motion issued by the 3rd respondent, alleging it to be illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. The petitioner argues that the notice did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 34-A of the Act and Rule 24 of the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice issued for the No Confidence Motion complied with the mandatory fifteen-day notice period prescribed by Section 34-A. The court also held that the absence of a signature on the motion and the lack of specific allegations did not vitiate the notice. Additionally, the court determined that the 3rd respondent had the authority to issue the notice, and the petitioner had a remedy under Section 76 of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance of the notice with the mandatory provisions of Section 34-A, the authority of the 3rd respondent to issue the notice, and the petitioner's claim of lack of transparency and violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 34-A and held that the notice complied with the mandatory fifteen-day notice period. The court also emphasized that the absence of a signature on the motion and the lack of specific allegations did not invalidate the notice. Furthermore, the court affirmed the authority of the 3rd respondent to issue the notice and highlighted the availability of a remedy under Section 76 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed by the court, concluding that the petitioner failed to make out a case for relief in his favor. The court held that the Writ Petition was devoid of merit and ordered its dismissal without costs.
ORDER
Petitioner files the Writ Petition to declare the Notice issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 34-A of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) and Rule 24-A of the Rules framed thereunder in R.C. No. 755/2024-C, dated 05.03.2024 for conducting a meeting of No Confidence against him on 21.03.2024 at the office of Nizamabad District Cooperative Central Bank, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
2. The affidavit reveals that petitioner hails from Pocharam Village and owns Acs.2.00 of agricultural land; due to his land ownership, he became a member of Deshaipet Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Deshaipet, Banswada Mandal, now Kamareddy district (for short, ‘the Society’). He was elected as a Director of the Society in 2020 and subsequently, the members elected him as President of the Society.
It is noted that the District Cooperative Central Banks are formed and administered by the elected Presidents of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies; therefore, representing Deshaipet Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, petitioner also holds membership in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Nizamabad.
It is stated that before bifurcation of the Districts in Telangana State, for each District, a District Cooperative Central Bank is established and registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. These DCCBs served as lending banks catering to the financial needs of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) in their respective districts.
Following petitioner’s election as President of the Society and his subsequent membership in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Nizamabad, he was elected as the Chairman of Nizamabad DCCB in 2020. Since then, he has diligently performed his duties, resulting in a significant increase in the bank's turnover and financial stability.
It is also stated that following recent elections in Telangana, certain members of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Nizamabad have developed animosity against petitioner.
Some of these members, who borrowed funds from the bank in violation of RBI Regulations, faced pressure from petitioner to repay, leading them to allege ‘lack of transparency’. They submitted a proposal for No Confidence Motion to the 3rd respondent, however, the proposal lacks signature at Sl. No.14 and does not adhere to the mandatory requirements outlined in Form No.AAA under Rule 6-A(1) and Section 34-A of the Act and Rule 24-A of the Rules. Specifically, the proposed motion lacks signatures in the presence of witnesses and is not accompanied by the prescribed Form AAA as required by the Rules framed under the Act. The affidavit underscores that the proposed No Confidence Motion is vague and is not supported by allegations, leaving petitioner unaware of the grounds for the Motion.
Despite the same, the 3rd respondent proceeded to issue the impugned notice, which called for a meeting on 21.03.2024 at 11.00 a.m. According to petitioner, notice was served personally on 06.03.2024 and via Registered Post on 08.03.2024, falling short of the mandatory fifteen-day notice period prescribed by Section 34-A. Furthermore, public holidays should have been excluded from the notice period calculation. Consequently, the notice issued by the 3rd respondent is deemed contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 34-A of the Act and Rule 24 of the Rules.
Upon receiving the notice, petitioner was surprised to find that some members had proposed No Confidence Motion and efforts to contact them were unsuccessful. This situation deprived petitioner of the opportunity to address any grievance they may have had, violating constitutional and democratic principles as well as contravening the Rules framed under the 1964 Act and the principles of natural justice.
The 3rd respondent has no power or authority to issue the impugned notice as he was delegated with the powers of the Registrar. According to GO Ms. No. 10 Agriculture & Coop
