Fishermen Co-op. Society vs Regional Dy. Director of Fisheries and Others

D.S.R. Varma, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus and setting aside the order dated 25-7-1998 in Rc. No. 2395/ B /95 on the file of the first respondent and the order dated 5-3-1997 passed in Rc. No. 132/E/95 on the file of the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of A. P. Co-operative Societies Act.

At the Interlocutory stage both the Counsel consented for final adjudication of the matter.

From the averments of the writ petition it can be seen that the petitioner Society is a registered Fishermen Co-operative Society. The village of Parsapur is within the area of operation of the petitioner-Society. There are about 58 members in the petitioner-Society. While so, the third respondent made an application with 15 members for deletion of Parsapur Village from the area of operation of petitioner-Society and for registering a separate Society. At this stage action has been initiated and eventually, this Court passed some orders in the earlier litigation which are not relevant for purpose of resolving the dispute in this case. However, pursuant to the explanation filed by the petitioner-Society to the notices issued by the second respondent on 18-12-1996 and 27-1-1997 the second respondent without considering the explanation has ordered deletion of Parsapur Village from the area of operation of petitioner-Society. In that process the second respondent in Rc. No. 132/E/95 dated 5-3-1997 ordered division of the petitioner Society into two Societies as Husnabad and Parsapur. Against the said order, revision u/s 77 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act has been filed and the order of the second respondent has been confirmed by the first respondent.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner setting apart all other issues, argued on only one point for consideration viz., whether the second and third respondents have followed the procedure laid down u/s 15 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act or not", in particular Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act.

The provisions under Sub-sections (1), (2), (3) of Section 15 are necessary to go through as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention which is as follows:

"15. Power to direct division or amalgamation:- Where in the opinion of the Registrar, any division or amalgamation of the societies is necessary in the interest of societies or of the Co-operative movement, the Registrar shall after, consulting the financing bank to which such societies are indebted, call upon the committee of such societies, by notice in writing containing such particulars as may be prescribed and within such time as may be specified in the notice so to divide or amalgamate, as the case may be.

(2) If, within the time specified in the notice referred to in Sub-section (1), the societies fail to comply with direction of the Registrar, he shall after giving an opportunity in the manner prescribed, to the general body, the committee of such societies and the creditors thereof to make their representation, if any by order notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct the division or amalgamation, as the case may be, and issue the necessary certificates of registration. (3) The order referred to in Sub-section (2) shall contain the particulars of constitution, authorities, property, rights and interests, liabilities, duties and obligations of the societies or society concerned".

As per Sub-section (1) of Section 15, the Registrar can call upon the committee of such societies, by notice in writing if in his opinion any division or amalgamation of the Societies is necessary in the interest of the Societies. Sub-section (2) provides the power to direct division or amalgamation after following the prescribed procedure thereunder. Sub-section (3) specifically says that any such order shall contain the particulars of constitution, authorities, property, rights and interests, liabilities, duties and obligations of the societies or society concerned. In the instant case there is no dispute with regard to compliance of the provisions under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends vehemently that a reading of the impugned proceeding passed by the second respondent dated 5-3-1997 does not disclose any reasons and particularly there is no mention about other particulars contemplated to be incorporated under Sub-section (3).

After perusing the order of the second respondent, I am of the opinion that the reasoning given in the operative portion is superficial. There is no specific mention about the particulars as contemplated under Sub-section (3). Section 15 is mandatory in nature and in the instant case the procedure under Sub-section (3) is not strictly complied with, hence it cannot be said that the order of the second respondent is passed in accordance with law. Further, perusal of the order passed by the first respondent, who is a revisional authority, makes further clear that it is no better than the order passed by the second respondent.

Therefore, I accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and accordingly, hold that the order passed by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the first respondent are not strictly in accordance with law, and on that score alone, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and they are accordingly set aside without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. I, therefore, direct the second respondent to pass orders afresh giving all particulars as specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the A.P, Co-operative Societies Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.