D. Chandramowleshwara Reddy vs District Collector, Chuddapah and others

The petitioner is Chairman of Distributory Committee No.9, Adinimmayapalli, Cuddapah district. He was elected on 15-11-1997. It is submitted that three of the members i.e., respondents 4 to 6 showed their inclination for recall of the petitioner and they moved an application before the District Collector. The Collector referred the matter to the third respondent i.e., Deputy Executive Engineer with the following reference:

"I enclose herewith a copy of the representation put in by (1) Sri P. Pratapa Reddy, W.U.A. President, Chennur, (2) P. Vasantha Kumar Reddy, W.U.A. President, Chinnamachupalli, and (3) B. V. Ramanna, W.U.A. President, Cuddapah and request you to go through the contents of the representation and take action as per the Andhra Pradesh Farmers'' Management of Irrigation Systems Act and Rules, 1997 in the matter."

The respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 29-4-1999 to convene a meeting for the purpose of considering the recall on 5-5-1999 at 4.00 p.m. This notice has been challenged in this writ petition. Stay has been granted and a vacate stay application has been filed. The matter has been heard in detail, therefore the petition is decided finally.

The case of the petitioner is that, in terms of Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh Farmers'' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (APFMIS Act), the procedure for recall is given. Section 10 lays down:

"10 Procedure for recall :-- (1) A motion for recall of a Chairman or President or member of a Managing Committee, as the case may be, of a farmers'' organisation may be made by giving a written notice as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one third of the total number of members of the farmer''s organisation, who are entitled to vote :

Provided that no notice of motion under this section shall be made within one year of the date of assumption of office by the person against whom the motion is sought to be moved.

(2) If the motion is carried with the support of majority of the members present and voting at a meeting of the general body specially convened for the purpose, the District Collector or the Government as the case may be shall by order remove him from office and the resulting vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as a causal vacancy."

In terms of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Fanners'' Management of Irrigation Systems rules, 1997 it is further laid down:

"8. Recall:--(1) the competent authority to receive the recall notice in respect of a Chairman or a President or a Member of the Managing Committee by any farmers'' organisation shall be the District Collector or an officer nominated by him.

(2) The recall notice in Form ''J'' shall signed by one third of the voters in respect of the President or a member of the Managing Committee of Water Users'' Association; and one third of members of the general body in respect of the President or the Chairman or a member of a Managing Committee of a distributory committee or the project committee.

(3) On receipt of such notice the officer shall cause due verification of the notice in Form ''K''.

(4) The officer nominated by the District Collector shall call for a meeting of the voters or the members of the general body, as the case may be, of the respective Farmers'' Organisation within 7 days after verification of the notice.

(5) In case 51 per cent, of the voters present have voted in favour of the motion for recall, the motion shall be deemed to have been passed.

(6) The officer thereafter shall issue the proceedings of recall to the concerned Chairman, President or the member of the respective farmers'' organisation immediately stating that the recall became effective from the date of passing of the resolution; and accordingly, he shall cease to hold such office."

By reading Section 10 and Rule 8 together it becomes clear that the competent authority to issue a recall notice is District Collector or an Officer nominated by him. The case of the petitioner is that the District Collector merely referred the notice given by respondents 4 to 6 to respondent No.3 but did not nominate him as an Officer in terms of Rule 8. He relies on a judgement of this Court being B. Nageswar Reddy Vs. Dist. Collector and Others, . The case of the respondents is that, there is general order passed by the Government on 24-10-1997 in terms of Section 21 of the Act by which the 3rd respondent has been appointed as an Officer responsible for implementation and execution of all decisions taken by the Farmers'' organisation, therefore he should be considered to have been nominated for the purpose of Rule 8 of the Rules, This argument was considered by this Court earlier in the judgement referred above (supra) and the Court found :

"5. A reading of Section 10 of the Act and Rule 8 of the Rules would make it abundantly clear that the competent authority to receive the recall notice is the ''District Collector'' or the Officer nominated by him. It is also required to notice at this stage that Section 21 of the Act authorises the Government to appoint an Officer of the Irrigation and Command Area Development Department or any other Department or Corporation, including Irrigation Development Corporation, to be the "competent authority'' to every farmers'' organisation for the purposes of this Act and such competent authority appointed shall be responsible to the respective farmers'' organisations for implementation and execution of all decisions taken by the farmers'' organisation and the expression "competent authority''; according to Section 2(d) of the Act means the authority appointed u/s 21 of the Act. The competent authority appointed u/s 21 of the Act is responsible for implementation and execution of all the decisions taken by the farmers'' organisation."

"6. It is so clear that this competent authority so appointed u/s 21 of the Act is not competent to receive the motion for recall of Chairman or Members of the Managing Committee of a Farmers'' organisation u/s 10 of the Act, The competent authority'' for such purpose to receive the motion of recall is the ''District Collector'' or an Officer nominated by him, as provided under Rule 8 of the Rules."

Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted as it has been negated by this Court earlier also on the ground that Collector or any person nominated by him alone is the competent authority to receive the motion for recall in terms of Rule 8.

In the light of these arguments, this Court has to see whether the letter written by the Collector to the Deputy Executive Engineer is also an appointment appointing him as an authority. The letter has been quoted herein above. This letter does not, merely, forward the representation of three persons for recall of the petitioner but it further asks respondent No.3 to go through the contents of the representation and take action as per the Andhra Pradesh Farmers'' Management of Irrigation Systems Act and Rules, 1997 in the matter. Therefore, the intention of the Collector was clearly of appointing the Deputy Executive Engineer as an authority to recall in terms of Section 8 (sic Rule 8). No special format or procedure is prescribed under the Act or in the Rules for appointing an authority by Collector other than himself for the purpose of Rule 8. The letter dated 28-4-1999 of the Collector was not merely a letter of information or reference but it was conferring authority in tenns of Rule 8 to the third respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the judgement referred to above will not come to the rescue of the petitioner because it is in different context that the judgement was pronounced and in the present case definitely the Collector has appointed respondent No.3 as an authority in terms of Rule 8.

For these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Since, earlier notice issued by respondent No.3 has become infructuous by afflux of time as this Court had passed an order of stay, the respondent No.3 is directed to issue a fresh notice for conducting the requisite meeting. No costs.