Morala Mohan Reddy vs State Of Telangana

Petitioner challenges the action of the 3rd respondent – District Cooperative Officer in issuing proceedings RC No. 135/2023-C, dated 22.02.2024 proposing to hold a meeting of the Managing Committee of Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Ltd., Narsampet (for short, ‘the Society’) on 12.03.2024 at 11 A.M. at the society's seat, alleging it to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to Sections 115-D and Sec. 34-A of the Telangana Cooperative Society Act, 1964.

Petitioner was the elected President of the Society comprising 13 Managing Committee Members, following elections held on 15.02.2020. While the things going on, it is stated, petitioner received the impugned notice from the 3rd respondent alleging a proposed "No Confidence Motion" against him for purportedly failing to support the managing committee in various developmental activities. According to him, the notice is contrary to the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) particularly Section 34-A and Rule 24-A and it purportedly lacks conformity with the prescribed format under the Rules, specifically Form No. AAA of Rule 6-A(1), which requires a requisition duly signed by elected members specifying the total number of signatories.

Petitioner states that the 5th respondent – Society utilised revival package, as such, the provisions of Section 115-D of the Act applies. Smooth functioning without contravening Section 115-D implies the 3rd respondent should not interfere in society affairs to avoid potential financial instability.

Petitioner points out that one Dharuvaula Tirupathi, one of the proposers of the motion, is disqualified under Section 21-A(1A) due to having more than two children, making him ineligible to propose the motion. Gujjula Madhav Reddy, another signatory, has never attended managing committee meetings since election, rendering him ineligible to propose the motion as per the submitted meeting minutes. These irregularities, the President contends, invalidate the motion proposed against them. Further, it is highlighted that under Section 34-A, a "No Confidence Motion" can only be initiated by members of the committee against the President and Vice- president, however, in the current proposal, the Vice-president, Mergu Srinivas, signed as the proposer, which is inconsistent with the provision.

On 06.03.2024, this Court granted interim order that no confidence motion against petitioner scheduled to be held on 12.03.2024 may go on, but the official respondents are directed not to declare the results till 20.03.2024.

The 3rd respondent has taken out vacate stay petition, along with it filed the counter-affidavit stating that pursuant to the notice dated 21.02.2024, in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 34-A and Rule 24-A(1) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, a notice was issued to hold the meeting of the Managing Committee on 12.03.2024 at 11:00 A.M at the seat of the Society, duly signed by nine managing committee members expressing their 'no confidence' in petitioner. The contention of petitioner that due to change of administration in the State some vested interested are constantly trying to abstract his welfare and bounded activities in the Society and also as contended the issue of notice under Section 34-A(3) read with Rule 24-A(1) is ab initio illegal and unauthorised under the Act is denied. It is stated that provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 34-A defines the requirements for a written notice of intention to make the motion, which were duly met in this case. According to this respondent, filing of a written notice in Form-AAA (Rule 6-A(1)) is not mandatory as per Section 34-A, hence, the contention of petitioner is incorrect. As regards the petitioner's argument regarding utilization of revival package and application of Section 115-D, it is stated that the 3rd respondent acted in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 34-A.

This respondent states that having fully aware of the disqualification of member by name Dharuvaula Thirupathi, petitioner continued working closely with the said member, who turned against him and now levelling irrelevant allegation.

It is asserted that Section 21-B of the Act provides for cessation of membership of a committee member who absents themselves without permission for three consecutive meetings. In this case, the member Gujjula Madhava Reddy's absence qualifies for cessation of membership, however, petitioner failed to initiate cessation process, reflecting on their effectiveness as President of the Society.

It is stated that Section 34-A provides among others that the managing committee is at liberty tomove ‘no confidence’ against the President, or the Vice-President or other office bearers of the Committee. Sub-clause (2) provides that a written notice of intention to make the motion, signed by not less than one-half of the total elected membership of the Committee including vacancies if any as constituted under Section 31 of the Act. As per Section 34(2), the President and Vice-President will come under total strength and except the member against whom ‘no confidence’ motion is proposed, all the members are eligible to sign the notice, hence the contention of petitioner is incorrect. It is further stated that members who signed the "no confidence motion" notice are eligible unless disqualified under relevant provisions of the Act. Disqualification claimed by the petitioner is unsubstantiated, rendering their contention baseless. It is emphasized that initiation of "no confidence motion" against petitioner was in compliance with the provisions of Section 34-A read with Rule 24-A and not in violation of Sections 115-D and 34-A as alleged by petitioner. The minutes of the meeting were recorded as per the orders of this Court.

Heard Sri M. Saleem, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation.

The main grievance of petitioner is, the proposed ‘No Confidence Motion' and subsequent notice are in violation of Section 34-A of the Act and Rule 24-A of the Rules framed thereunder. It is not in conformity with Form No. AAA (Rule 6-A(1)), whereunder a requisition has to be given by the elected members of the Society to move 'No Confidence Motion' duly signed by them in terms of the Act specifying the particulars of total elected members and total members who signed the motion. It is contended that when no reasons are assigned, there is no point in holding the meeting for discussion on the aspect of ‘No Confidence Motion’. Learned counsel submits that when management of Society is functioning smoothly without there being any contravention under Section 115-D of the Act, the 3rd respondent cannot be allowed to poke his nose in the affairs, and if they are permitted to do so, the financial stability of the 5th respondent society as well as the 4th respondent bank will be affected, directly or indirectly. Whereas learned Government Pleader submits that as soon as Managing Committee members, numbering nine, submitted 'No Confidence Motion' on 21.02.2024, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 22.01.2024 in accordance with Rule 24-A(1), scheduling a meeting on 12.03.2024. It is contended that enclosure of copy of ‘No Confidence Motion' moved against petitioner along with notice of meeting is not necessary and there is no provision in Act or Rules either expressly or by necessary implication, mandating service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' along with notice to be served by Registrar to all members.

In Y. Raghava Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1999 (2) ALT 175, this Court held as under:

“ 8. We have perused the record. The notice was served though the copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence is not attached with the said notice. Be that as it is, nothing has been pointed out at the Bar whereby, by the Legislature, it has been provided that non-compliance of processual or procedural provisions of service of notice or the form of notice would render the vote of no-confidence invalid. The object of procedural law is to serve the person or appraise the person that a vote of no-confidence would be held on a particular date and at a particular time for consideration of the motion of no-confidence. It is only the intention of the proposer which has to be intimated to the members, which has been categorically made in the present case. It cannot be assumed that the petitioner was not aware of the object of the meeting, time of meeting and place of meeting. There is nothing on. record from which we can assume that even the copy of the proposed motion was not enclosed, if it would have been so, the members would have approached the authority stating that the notice does not carry the copy which is stated to have been enclosed with the notice. Official acts are presumed to have been done in due discharge of the duty as envisaged and contained in the notice. There is a presumption that a copy of the motion has in fact been enclosed unless contrary is proved. There is nothing to prove contrary to the record. There is no dispute that eight members out of the twelve members had proposed to move a vote of no-confidence. The meeting was already held and it is a fate accomplished that out of the twelve members, eight have voted in favour of the no- confidence motion. The notice being only directory, the mere use of the word “shall”, cannot give rise to it being a mandatory in the facts and circumstances of the case, and specially when no consequence for non-compliance of the requirements of the notice in Form-V has been provided by legislation. In view of this, we find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence has not been enclosed with Form-V notice.

In the alternative, as stand from the pleadings, the copy sent was only in Form-ll which did not contain the names of the persons who presented the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which may, at the most, raise is to the pedestal of an irregularity which will not render the proceedings as non-est or bad. There are no pari materia provisions provided for to the effect that non service of true copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence would render the notice invalid.

In Daman Laxminarayana V. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sircilla Division 2013(4) ALD 629, it has been held as under:

“ 14. It needs to be pointed out that even in the absence of a debate, Form-V prescribed under the Rules framed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, provides for service of a copy of Motion of No Confidence. Interestingly, even though the provisions of the Act envisaged a debate, no such provision is incorporated therein. If the Legislature felt that for the purpose of debate, enclosure of a copy of No Confidence Motion is necessary, there would have been no reason why a specific provision is not incorporated therein. No ignorance can be attributed to the Legislature. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that in its wisdom, the Legislature felt that service of copy of No Confidence Motion on the members is not required. The Courts cannot substitute its own opinion for the wisdom of the Legislature.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules, either expressly or by necessary implication, mandating service of copy of No Confidence Motion along with the notice to be served by the Registrar to all the members, it is not possible for this Court to hold that service of copy of No Confidence Motion must be read into the provisions of the Act.

There is another angle from which this issue needs to be examined. There is a minimum time limit of 15 days between the service of notice and the date of No Confidence Motion. If the persons against whom the No Confidence Motion is moved or his supporters feel the necessity of knowing the contents of the Motion, they will have sufficient time to approach the Registrar with a request to furnish a copy of No Confidence Motion and other necessary details regarding the No Confidence Motion. If such a request is made, this Court feels that it is mandatory on the part of the Registrar to furnish a copy of No Confidence Motion and other details relevant for the purpose of Motion to such members. The Legislature has, obviously, assumed that as, such a facility is always available to the members, the requirement of service of copy of No Confidence Motion along with the notice is not necessary.

In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that in the absence of statutory prescription of service of copy of No Confidence Motion to the members, the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. However, as observed herein before, the petitioners shall be free to approach respondent No. 1 with a request to furnish copies of the No Confidence Motion. If the petitioners make such a request, respondent No. 1 shall forthwith furnish the copies thereof. Since the proposed meeting could not take place in view of the interim order granted by this Court, respondent No. 1 is directed to issue a fresh notice to the members by fixing a date for considering the No Confidence Motion.

In view of the clear law laid down as stated supra on this aspect, this Court is of the view that Rule 24-A of the Rules laid down the procedure to be followed in respect of 'No Confidence Motion'. Neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' along with notice to be issued by the Registrar. In the absence of statutory prescription, the impugned notice does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The submission of learned counsel for petitioners that the 3rd respondent acted in contrast to the provisions of the Act cannot be countenanced.

Yet another ground raised by petitioner is that one Dharuvaula Tirupathi, one of the proposers of the motion, is disqualified under Section 21-A(1A) due to having more than two children, making him ineligible to propose the motion. Gujjula Madhav Reddy, another signatory, has never attended managing committee meetings since election, rendering him ineligible to propose the motion as per the submitted meeting minutes. However, petitioner being the President of the Society failed to initiate cessation process, hence, he cannot raise the ground of disqualification now in this Writ Petition.

Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation placed before this Court minutes book of the society, a perusal of which shows that on 12.03.2024, no confidence motion was conducted at 11.00 A.M. Out of thirteen, nine members signed in favour of motion and four against the motion. Since majority members signed in favour of motion and in view of the settled legal position, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.