AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Motilal B. Naik, J.—The short question that falls for consideration is whether there is conflict between Rule 23-AAA of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 and Bye-law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-Society.
For the purpose of better understanding the proposition Rule 23-AAA of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ''the Rules'') and Bye-law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-Society are extracted hereunder.
Rule 23 AAA "Notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, any member or members of the committee including the resident may resign his seat by sending a letter of resignation by reigstered post or by tendering it in person to the Registrar and such resignation shall take affect from the date it is accepted by the Registrar."
Bye-Law 20, "Term of Office of Managing Committee:- All the members of the Managing committee shall be elected as per the provisions of the A.P Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rules thereunder for a period of 3 years. Any casual vacancy occurs during its term of office of the managing committee shall be filed by co-operation and such co-opted member shall hold office for the remaining period of office of the member in whose place he is co-opted. The General Body have got a power to remove any member of the managing committee and elect another member in his place and such elected member shall hold office for the remaining period of the member in whose place he is elected. The actions of the managing Committee shall not be invalid merely because the casual vacancy or vacancies that arose are not filed-up.
Any elected member of the managing committee can resign his post at any time. The resignation shall come into effect from the date of its acceptance by the Managing committee after the resignation letter is addressed to the president and sent to the Secretary."
The two provisions precisely indicate the forum for submitting the resignation by any member of the managing committee and on such submission of resignation, the authority indicated therein is competent to accept such resignation. It is neceassary to know the Rule 23-AAA is a new provision added to the rules by G.O.Ms.No. 874 (Coop.IV) Dt 1-12-88.
The learned single Judge, while considering these two propositions, held that operation of Rule 23-AAA of the Rules is absolute and, therefore, Rule 23-AAA is the only rule governing tendering of resignation/acceptance by any member of the managing committee, including president.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, appearing for the respondents. To our mind, a plain reading of Rule 23-AAA does not call for interpreting it as to the conflicting with bye-law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-Society. The words used in Rules 23-AAA viz., "Notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, any member of members, .... "are to be construed in addition to the provision contemplated in the bye-law that any member can resign the seat by sending a letter of resignation by registered post or tendering it in person to the Registrar and such resignation shall take affect from the date it is accepted by the Registrar.
The learned Government Pleader has taken us through the decisions in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram, and C. Appala Swamy v. Govt of A.P. 1983 (2) An.W.R. 225 and contended that where there is inconsistency between a provision made under the Act and the Rules, the by-law must give way to the rule. Sri Peadabadu, learned counsel for the appellant, on the contrary, takes us through the decision of this Court in Parasuramaiah v. Lakshmamma 1965 (1) An.W.R. 253 and contends that the two forums contemplated under Rule 23-AAA of the Rules and bye-law No. 20 cannot be interpreted as to be conflicting with each other. He also contends that there is no repugnancy between these two provisions and the interpretation as arrived at by the learned single Judge is not warranted when the plain reading of the words indicated no conflict between the two provisions.
We are in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that there is no conflict between Rule 23-AAA of the Rules and bye-law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-society and these two can survive independently. The decisions cited by the learned Government Pleader have no relevance to the facts of the case on hand. The ratio laid down in those decisions is on a different proposition and, therefore, they cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. As we have held that there is no conflict in the two provisions, the finding of the learned single judge cannot sustain.
Accordingly, we set aside the order dt. 30-10-92 in Writ Petition No. 12557/92. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.