Kalava Sitaramaiah and Others vs Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Another

P.A. Chowdary, J.—The Managing Committee of Kanchika-charla Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Krishna District was elected on July 2, 1987. It consisted of twelve members. A few days after it was elected, a meeting of the managing committee was proposed to be held on July 16, 1987. Even by then, differences between these elected directors erupted and non-co-operation by nine of them arose. The meeting of the managing committee was adjourned on that day because there was no quorum. Lack of quorum was not for accidental reasons. On July 17, 1987, nine letters of resignation by the nine elected directors were presented to the secretary of the co-operative society with copies marked to the office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vijayawada. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies took the view that by reason of the non-co-operation of these nine members evidenced by their letters of resignation, the committee was not functioning properly. He had, therefore, issued a show-cause notice u/s 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act to the managing committee members to show cause why the committee should not be superseded. The president of the society replied that he may be given some more time. He said in reply that the newspapers had reported that some of the directors had withdrawn their resignations and that he proposed to convene a meeting of the managing committee on August 16, 1987 to consider their resignations and withdrawals and that, therefore, he may be given time upto August 17, 1987 for filing explanation. Thus, before the date fixed for submitting the explanation expired on August 5, 1987, the President gave no explanation. On the other hand, eight members out of the nine directors who had earlier submitted their letters of resignation confirmed their resignations in their explanations. They affirmed that they had already resigned their posts of directorship and that they had no objection to the proposed action of supersession. Only the ninth director, Thota Rama Rao, recanted. Even he did not deny the fact that earlier he had submitted his resignation along with the other eight directors. In his reply to the show-cause notice, Rama Rao only stated that he had withdrawn his resignation and that he was willing to attend the meeting of the managing committee. There was a further complication created. On August 5, 1987, letters of withdrawal of resignation purported to have been written and signed by five directors out of the eight directors had been received in the co-operative office. The Registrar, therefore, summoned all the nine directors to appear before him on August 1, 1987 in the office of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Vijayawada, In pursuance of that notice, eight directors had appeared before the Registrar and affirmed once again their letters of resignation and supported the proposed action of supersession. Clearly, that is what they wished to happen. As eight directors out of twelve directors had tendered their resignations on July 17, 1987 and as they had not attended the committee meeting convened on July 16, 1987 and as they were not prepared to withdraw their resignations, the Registrar opined that there was no point in acceding to the request of the president and postponing the taking of action on the show-cause notice till August 17, 1987. In those circumstances, the Registrar had concluded that the committee was not functioning properly and accordingly superseded the committee. It is against that order that the present writ petition is filed.

Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act is a statutory remedy prescribed by the Act to treat a co-operative ailment now spreading in an epidemic form throughout the co-operative movement. The section says that if, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee is not functioning properly, he can supersede the committee. It only means that the committee should, in fact, not function properly and the formation of the requisite opinion by the Registrar should be objective. If, as a fact, the committee is not functioning properly, the co-operative physician, which the Registrar is must apply the prescribed remedy. From the facts stated above, it is clear that there has been a stalemate wantonly and deliberately created in the functioning of the committee by the active non-co-operation of at least eight members out of the twelve members of the managing committee. Eight members had not only not attended the first meeting of the managing committee but also submitted their resignation letters sending copies of the same to the Co-operative Office and standing by them in their personal appearance before the Registrar. There can be no doubt, in these circumstances, that the eight members were not willing to co-operate with the other four members of the committee. With the withdrawal of their co-operation, the functioning of the committee which depends upon the presence of a quorum of at least seven members was made impossible. Without that quorum, the committee cannot meet and the general body cannot be convened. I am of the opinion that the Registrar is perfectly justified in the above circumstances in concluding that the committee is not functioning properly and also that it cannot function. These basic facts were not denied even by the president. He merely stated that newspapers had reported about the withdrawal of some resignations. But those reports were proved false. Eight members, appearing in person affirmed their resignations. In these circumstances, the question of granting time for the president to convene another meeting of the managing committee cannot be considered to be a genuine request. Horse-trading is not a recognised part of the Act. The president is merely trying to buy time. Taking statutory action which is authorised to be taken by the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act cannot be postponed merely to enable the president to win supporters by influencing people. The request of the President to convene the committee meeting later is no more than an attempt of the president to win over to his side at least some of the non-co-operative directors. There is no place for such games to be played in the co-operative arena. The action contemplated by Section 34(1) of the Act is one which should be taken on the existing facts and is not one that could be postponed on the basis of future possibilities. It is a fact that the committee had been in existence only for a period of 30 days. But, to the functioning of the committee, that cannot make much difference. The Act expects the committee to function properly every day. The established fact of non-co-operation of the eight directors brought about a permanent situation, which the Registrar is bound to take notice. As the facts stand, it is clear that the committee is not functioning properly. In these circumstances, the action taken by the Registrar in superseding the managing committee is perfectly justified under the terms of Section 34( 1) of the Act.

All this may appear to be strange to a bookish student of democracy and co-operation. But that is part of us. By law alone, that unfortunate situation cannot be remedied. I said in Anakapalli Appalraju and Others Vs. Pentakata Siva Kondarao and Others, .

"But by law alone, we cannot remove such cancerous aberrations rapidly spreading in our body politic. Nothing is more difficult of achievement for law than to prevent the homo-sapiens from self-destruction. A community of people determined to renounce their inalienable right to self-governance cannot be saved by law for long from the throes of thraldom. Those who are anxious to be bondmen cannot be helped to be freemen."

I do not see any merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed, no costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 250.