AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Motilal B. Naik, J.—In this writ petition, the action of the first respondent in appointing person-in-charge to manage the affairs of Katravalapalli Fisheries Co-operative Society, Jaggannapet Mandal, East Godavari District is assailed on various grounds.
In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the official respondents and the fourth respondent who has been impleaded by today''s order in W.P.M.P.No. 5542 of 1996, it is necessary to trace few facts relating to this case.
Petitioner is the former President of Katravalapalli Fisheries Co-operative Society (for short "the society"). It is stated that he was elected on 18-12-1993 unanimously for a period of three years from 28-12-1993 to 27-12-1996, to the Managing Committee and the Managing Committee in turn elected him as President of the said society for three years. It is stated that the society has been functioning smoothly from 1993 onwards under his Presidentship. However, the ex-president of the Managing Committee Sri K. Sathi Babu who was inimically disposed against the petitioner and the Managing Committee started creating trouble and was trying to disturb the normal functioning of the society.
While so, on 26-6-1995, a general body meeting of the society was called for fixing the date of meeting to be held on 8-7-1995. The agenda for the general body meeting was also fixed on the following subjects:
(i) about the tankers taken on lease from the Gram Panchayat, Katravalapalli by the Katraualapalli Fisheries Co-operative Society is coming to an end by 30-8-1995 and submission of balance sheet for the year 1994-95 by the managing committee;
(ii) regarding conducting of general body meeting on 8-7-1995 as per the decision of the Managing Committee;
(iii) Discussions about the filing of suit by some persons against the society in Munsif Magistrate''s Court, Peddapuram, ;
(iv) No specific subject was prescribed. However, it is indicated in the notice that any other subject with the approval of the Chair would be taken up.
It is stated that notice to all the members on the agenda was sent in accordance with the requirement by proceedings dated 1-7-1995. The second respondent seems to have sought some other information from the petitioner to furnish the date and time of the general body meeting and the proof of information to all the members of the society as per the bye-laws. It is stated that the required particulars as sought by the second respondent was also submitted by the petitioner.
It is stated that the general body meeting was held as scheduled from 4.00 PM to 6.00 PM under the presidentship of the petitioner. On passing resolutions on the three items in the agenda, the petitioner and the committee members seem to have left the meeting place. However, it is alleged that subsequent to the departure of the petitioner and other members, some members were still present in the meeting hall and they appear to have moved a no-confidence motion against the petitioner and the entire managing committee by recording it on the minutes book and passed a resolution removing the entire committee. Basing on this development, the second respondent seems to have sent a letter to the first respondent herein stating that the President and the Managing Committee of the society have been voted out in the general body meeting on 8-7-1995 and it was further informed to the first respondent that there is no valid body to manage the affairs of the society and requested the first respondent to appoint person-in-charge.
Basing on the proceedings of the second respondent dated 25-7-1995, the first respondent by proceedings dated 7-8-1995 while exercising powers u/s 32(7)(a) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short"the Act") has appointed the third respondent as person-in-charge to manage the affairs of the society. This action of the respondents 1 and 2 is assailed in this writ petition on various grounds.
On behalf of the official respondents, a counter has been filed inter-alia contending that there is no illegality in the proceedings issued by the first respondent appointing a person-in-charge to the society as in the opinion of the first respondent, there was no committee to manage the affairs of the society and therefore, while exercising the powers vested in the first respondent u/s 32(7)(a) of the Act, the first respondent has rightly appointed the third respondent as person-in-charge. In the counter, it is further stated that the general body of the society is competent to remove any member of the managing committee including the President of the society and therefore, there is no violation as alleged in the writ petition.
A separate counter has also been filed by the impleaded-petitioner - fourth respondent who claims that he is also a member of the society. According to him, the general body meeting was called on 7-8-1995 (sic. 8-7-1995). The fourth item of the agenda was "any other matter with the permission of the chair." It is stated that under the said item No. 4, the general body expressed its no-confidence and voted out the entire committee, it is stated that the general body is competent to act in this fashion in terms of Section 30 of the Act. In this background, it is contended, the petitioner cannot have any grievances.
The principal submission made by Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the action of the general body in removing the petitioner as well as the managing committee of the society is illegal inasmuch as the procedure contemplated in terms of Section 32(4) of the Act has not been followed in this behalf. It is stated that though the General Body is supreme and competent to remove the President or any member by following certain procedure contemplated in this behalf, in the absence of non-complying with the specific procedure contemplated in terms of Section 32(4) of the Act, the removal of the petitioner from the Presidentship of the managing committee is illegal.
On the contrary, the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, counsel for the fourth respondent are in the direction of justifying the action of the respondents 1 and 2. It is contended that the general body is competent to remove any person and therefore on 7-8-95 the general body meeting was held and in that meeting a resolution was passed against the managing committee and its president. The president and managing committee were voted out and therefore, such action cannot be held to be illegal. It is further contended that though there was no specific agenda as to moving of no-confidence motion against the President and the Managing Committee and yet, as per item No. 4 in the agenda notice, it was indicated that "any other matter could be taken up with the permission of the Chair" and therefore, no-confidence motion against the committee was taken up. The endeavour of the learned Government Pleader is to say that Section 32(7) of the Act empowers the first respondent to appoint a person-in-charge when in his opinion there is no committee capable of managing the affairs of the society and therefore, the first respondent has rightly appointed the third respondent as person-in-charge of the society. It is further stated that pursuant to the appointment of person-in-charge to the petitioner-society, the person-in-charge has already taken charge and is functioning and therefore, no interference is called for from this Court at this stage.
On hearing all the counsel, I am of the view, the controversy raised in the writ petition could be narrowed down as to whether the general body meeting, which was held on 7-8-95 (sic. 8-7-95), is competent to move a resolution of no-confidence motion against the President and the managing committee though there was no specific agenda to do so and whether such moving of no-confidence motion against the President and the managing committee requires a notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.
In order to appreciate the contentions, I shall firstly discuss the implication of the words "any other subject with the permission of the chair" which appeared under item No. 4 in the notice issued for the purpose of holding general body meeting on 7-8-1995 (sic. 8-7-95). It is no doubt true that any other matter with the permission of the chair could be moved when the general body meeting is in progress. In this case, there is specific agenda fixed for consideration before the general body meeting. The first item being the tankers taken on lease from the Grama Panchayat Katravulapalli which period would be expiring by 30-8-1995 and the submission of balance sheet for the year 1994-95 by the managing committee. The second item is for conducting the general body meeting on 8-7-1995 as per the decision of the managing committee earlier and the third item being the discussion about the filing of a suit against the society in the Munsif Magistrate''s Court, Peddapuram by some persons. When these three specific items are indicated in the notice issued to the members of the society to be taken up for consideration in the general body meeting to be held on 7-8-1995 (sic. 8-7-1995), if it was intended to move a no-confidence motion against the managing committee or for that matter against the president, the notice issued in this behalf should have indicated the proposal to move a no-confidence motion also. The submission that the fourth item of the agenda, that is to say, "any other item with the permission of the chair" is sufficient to move a no-confidence motion against the committee, seems to be misnomer inasmuch as when the agenda contains specific subjects to be discussed, a very important subject i.e., moving a no-confidence motion against the managing committee, has not been listed in the agenda. Therefore, when no specific item regarding the moving of a no-confidence motion has been included in agenda, taking up of no-confidence motion under item-4 of the agenda is not permissible.
In Horsley''s MEETINGS, PROCEDURE, LAW AND PRACTICE, 2nd edition at page-407 under chapter-4, referring to "agenda" at item No. 410, it is indicated as follows:
"The inclusion of ''other business'' or ''General business'' as a closing agenda item for committee and board meetings provides for the consideration, if only in a preliminary way, of any unexpected or fresh and important business; also it enables up-to-date information on matters of passing interest to be reported and noted at the time rather that await the next meeting. The urgency of circumstances must be taken into account, but in principle ''other or general business'' needs to be within the terms of the notice of meeting i.e. the agenda cannot contain items which go beyond the scope of the notice."
Thus, it is clear that the agenda cannot contain such an item which go beyond the scope of the notice.
In this case, admittedly, there are three specific items fixed in the agenda to be discussed in the general body meeting on 7-8-1995 (sic. 8-7-1995). The last item though indicated as "any other subject with the permission of the chair", cannot go beyond the scope of notice. I am therefore, inclined to hold that the words "any other subject with the permission of the chair" cannot be understood to say that removal of the managing committee and the President is also intended.
The entire system of co-operative movement including elections, constitution of bodies and removal, is governed by a statute i.e., the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. This statute also contemplates various procedure to be followed in given circumstances. Section 30 of the said Act, under Chapter IV - "Management of Societies" makes it clear that the ultimate authority of the society is the general body, that is to say, the general body is supreme. Section 32 deals with the general meetings and committee meetings. Section 32(1) postulates that the committee may, at any time, call a general meeting of the society. Section 32(1-A) postulates that if the General meeting is not convened in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1), the members of the committee shall cease to hold office on the day next after the 1st day on which the general meeting should have been held. Section 32(3) of the Act makes it clear that it shall be the duty of the President of the society to call the meetings of the committee so that atleast one meeting of the committee is held in every three months. Section 32(4) of the Act postulates the requisition referred to in Sub-section (2) of Sub-section (3) shall specify the purpose for which the meeting is to be called, and shall be signed by and delivered in person or by registered address of the society. Section 32(7-a) of the Act postulates that if there is no committee or in the opinion of the Government or, the Registrar, it is not possible to call a general meeting for the purpose of conducting election of members of the committee, the Government in respect of such class of societies as may be prescribed and the Registrar in all other cases may appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding six months.
Thus, u/s 32 of the Act, holding of general body meeting and committee meeting, the procedure to be followed is indicated. Since a specific provision is indicted for calling of general body meeting and committee meetings and the notices to be served on the members, there cannot be any doubt in this case to say that a matter dealing with the removal of persons elected as President and members of the committee cannot lightly be taken up for consideration in the general body meeting which was held on 7-8-95 (sic. 8-7-95)in a casual manner. The Act also provides certain measures of checks and balances to say that if the President or the Managing Committee is failing to call a general body meeting on the requisition of the members, the powers are vested in the Registrar of the society to call for a general body meeting notwithstanding the fact that the managing committee failed to call for a general body meeting while fixing agenda for expressing no-confidence motion against the elected committee.
It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner or the managing committee failed to call for a general body meeting which sought for discussion of no-confidence motion against the elected committee by the members of the society.
It is no doubt true that the general body is competent to remove any body including the members and President of the committee. The power of the first respondent to appoint a person-in-charge u/s 32(7) of the Act is also not disputed. But the procedure followed by the general body while removing the petitioner from the presidentship of the committee is valid or not is the question to be examined in this case. As discussed by me in detail, I am inclined to hold that the procedure contemplated under the Act for calling for a general body meeting for the purpose of removal of the President or the Managing Committee is totally lacking in this case.
The entire co-operative movement is to survive on democratic principles, that is to say, admitting members in accordance with the provisions of the Act, holding of elections to the society and election of the managing committee. The foundation on which the democratic system survives is by enforcing the rule of law. The legislature makes the rule, the executive implements the rule and Courts are guardians to see whether the rule of law is properly enforced or not. Therefore, the responsibility of the Courts is so onerous to safeguard the system. Whenever the rule of law is sought to be frustrated, the Constitutional Courts are bound to set at naught the damage done.
As indicated above, when the entire system of holding the general body meeting, removal of persons including the President is governed by the procedure contemplated under the Act, this case is a glaring example of negative attitude displayed by all the concerned, probably for the purpose of serving somebody''s interests. This Court is, therefore, pained to say that the procedure adopted by the respondents is a dear violation of the provisions contemplated under the Act for the purpose of removal of the President and the members of the Managing Committee.
The efforts of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are in the direction of sustaining the orders passed by the first respondent appointing the person-in-charge on the basis of the report of the second respondent. The further efforts that the person-in-charge so appointed has already taken charge and this court cannot interfere at this stage, in the facts and circumstances, are not acceptable to this Court. Therefore, I hold that the removal of the petitioner from the presidentship of the managing committee in the absence of any specific agenda and sufficient notice being given for this purpose, is vitiated and cannot be allowed to sustain.
The learned Government Pleader has made yet another effort to convince this Court by referring to a decision of the Suprme Court in The Vice-chancellor, Utkal University and Others Vs. S.K. Ghosh and Others, that the principle laid down in this decision would help the action of the respondents even if there is no specific agenda fixed for removal of the committee. I am afraid, this decision is otherwise. In para-15 of the said decision, it is observed as follows:
"We do not think it necessary to examine the general principle at any length because, in our opinion, this case is governed by its own facts. It may well be that when there is a statutory requirement about notice, the provisions of the statute cannot be evaded or ignored. It may also be, though we do not stop to enquire whether it is, that when the constitution of a non-statutory body requires notice to be given, then also, there cannot be any relaxation of the rule."
In this decision, the Supreme Court has precisely held that when there are provisions contemplated under a statute, such provisions cannot be evaded or ignored. Therefore, when procedure contemplated under the Act for holding of a general body meeting and to remove the President or the managing committee, is not followed, such removal of the President and the managing committee is illegal.
Having regard to the discussion, I am inclined to hold that the impugned proceedings in Rc.No. 1318/C/95, dated 7-8-1995 issued by the first respondent basing on the report of the second respondent are illegal and accordingly, the said proceedings are set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.