G. Narasimhulu vs Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mahabubnagar and others

This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Mahabubnagar, issued in Rc.No.A7/1249/2000 dated 10-5-2000 as illegal and arbitrary.

The 1st respondent by the said proceedings dated 10-5-2000 issued a notice to the Chairman of Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, Mahabubnagar Group advising him to convene an emergency general body meeting to take a decision for bifurcation of TTCS and delete the village of Amistanpur, Palkonda and Chinnadarpally from the TCS Mahabubnagar group and submit the amendment proposals as required u/s 16 of APCS (Act 7 of 1964). It is further stated in the said notice that the emergency general body meeting notice should be issued immediately by giving 7 days as per Bye-law No.23 (A) by following the procedure laid down in Bye-law No.23 (1 to 3). Questioning the said notice, the Director of the Managing Committee of TTCS (groups of shops) filed this writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, interim suspension was granted on 17-5-2000. Respondents 2 to 4 filed vacate petition. At the consent of all the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

Sri R. Satyanarayana Raju, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the said notice issued by the 1st respondent is contrary to Sections 15 and 15-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, and therefore, the said notice is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 states that though the said notice is in conformity with Section 15-A of the Act but the 1st respondent wrongly quoted Section 16 and therefore, the said notice may be treated u/s 15-A.

As per the procedure contemplated u/s 15-A for division of the Society if the Registrar is of the opinion that it is necessary to divide a society in the interest of the Co-operative movement in general or for any other reason in the public interest, he may identify the viable and nonviable societies which may be retained or divided with consequential restriction of area of operation or transfer of such area or amalgamated or liquidated, as the case may be, by a notification to be published in the prescribed manner, specify the area of operation of each such society or societies to be retained, divided or amalgamated with any other society indicated in the said notification and invite objections from the societies or any members, depositors, creditors, employees or other persons concerned with the affairs of each such society to be received within twenty one days from the date of publication of the notifications.

Admittedly, it is not stated in the notice that the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies has formed an opinion for the division of the society. There is HO enquiry and there is no formation of an opinion and the Registrar has not formed any opinion and there is no scheme in which manner the society has to be divided and no scheme is formulated by the society for the division of the existing groups with its members, ration rental etc. The impugned notice is issued only on the representation filed by respondents 2 to 4, who are also members of the society, without forming an opinion and without completing the mandatory requirement of issuing a notification of twenty-one days. This notice has been issued u/s 16 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The said notice is clearly contrary to and in violation of Section 15-A of the Act. The notice issued to convene general body meeting within 7 days is also contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 15-A(i)(e) of the Act. I, therefore, do not see any justification to uphold the said notice and it is illegal and contrary to the said provisions. I, therefore, set aside the notice and allow the writ petition. However, this order will not preclude the 1st respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs.