P. Rama Appa Rao vs Visakhapatnam Steel Project Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited and others

B.S.A. Swamy, J.—Assailing the validity of the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the first respondent at its meeting held on 23-11-1998, removing the petitioner as Secretary, this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

The principal contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that u/s 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) No-Confidence Motion can be moved against the President or the Vice-President of the Committee, but not the Secretary of the Society, The petitioner being an elected Secretary and the Statute do not provide for removal of the Secretary by way of No-Confidence Motion, the Resolution adopted by the Managing Committee, is without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law.

I have gone through Section 34-A of the Act and other relevant provisions for disposal of the writ petition. It is true that Section 34-A of the Act - introduced by Act 21 of 1985 which came into force with effect from 3-6-1985 - provides for passing of a motion expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President of a Committee in accordance with the procedure laid down in that section. Prima facie, the contention of Mr. D. V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, looks attractive. But, if one goes through the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it can be seen that u/s 32 of the Act, the ultimate authority of the Society is vested in the general body and under sub-section 2(1), the general body of the Society is empowered to deal with the election and removal of the members of the Committee. As per Section 31 of the Act, the general body has to constitute a Committee in accordance with the bye-laws and entrust the management of the affairs of the Society to such Committee. u/s 31(5) of the Act, for all classes of Co-operative Societies, the President of the Society has to be elected by members of the general body from among themselves in the manner prescribed. The President elected under this sub-section shall be an ex-officio member of the Committee. It is known fact that when once Managing Committee is constituted, day-to-day affairs of the Society shall be managed by the Committee. u/s 2(b) of the Act, Committee is defined as a governing body of a Society by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the Society is entrusted. Except the above provisions, the Act did not specify who are the office bearers in the Managing Committee of the Society. It is only by way of an amendment in 1985 Section 34-A, was introduced which speaks of motion of no-confidence against President and Vice-President of the Committee.

Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules (for short, the Rules), framed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred u/s 130, speaks of elections to the Co-operative Societies. A reference to the Office of President has been made in Rule 22(9) of me Rules, under which the election of the President of all classes of Primary Societies shall be by all members of the Society as provided under sub-section 5 of Section 31 of the Act. Under this Rule, notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the Society, the Election Officer shall convene the meeting of the elected members to elect the President and office bearers. Again in the Rules also no reference was made to the post of either Secretary or Vice-President of the Society or any other officer bearer.

Under the bye-laws of the first respondent Society. Bye-law 14 of the byelaws speaks of Management. Under the said bye-law the Management of the Stores shall vest in a Board consisting of 9 Directors headed by President and as per the procedure prescribed in this bye-law, President, Treasurer and two Directors shall be nominated by the Registrar/District Cooperative Officer/DOC Co-operative Officer in consultation with the Managing Director, Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Visakhapatnam and five Directors shall be elected by the general body and the election then shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Of the five elected Directors, one Vice-President and one Secretary shall be elected from among the elected members of the Managing Committee and the Members of the Board shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of assumption of office. At the same time, though a provision is made in the bye-laws for election of Vice-President and Secretary from among the elected Board of Directors, no provision is made for moving No-Confidence Motion against the President or any of the Board of Directors. With the result, we have to fall back to again on the provisions of the Statute to know the mind of the Legislature. From the above provisions, it is seen that the Act and the Rules framed thereunder speak of office of the President and the Committee, in which powers of administration of the affairs of the Society vests. But, no other office bearer was named in them. Now, by way of amendment, the Legislature introduced Section 34-A, by Act No.21 of 1985 which came into force with effect from 3-6-1985, whereunder a provision was made for moving motion of no-confidence against President or Vice-President of the Committee. Admittedly, in the bye-laws, a reference was made to the office of Vice-President, which do not find place either in the Act or under the Rules made thereunder in the Committee that is to be constituted by the general body for vesting the powers of management. To my mind, it occurs that the President or the Vice-President referred to in Section 34-A of the Act should be read as the office bearers of the Committee, in which the power to administer the affairs of the Society vested. Secondly, the ultimate authority of the Society vests in the general body of the Society and under sub-section 2(1), the general body is empowered to make necessary provisions for election or removal of the members of the Committee. It is now well-recognised principle of interpretation of Statute, that the words employed in the Statute have to be given their fullest meaning to give effect to the intention of the Legislature while making provision. No mention was made about the Office of the Secretary. Secretary plays a vital role in the administration of the affairs of the Society, in the absence of the President. In fact, as long as the Society is headed by President, Vice-President does not enjoy any powers and only in the absence of President, Vice-President steps into shoes of the President to exercise the powers vested in the President. Hence, as the office of the Secretary being a pivotal one in the administration of the affairs of the Society, Section 34-A of the Act has to be read as motion of No-Confidence not only in the President and Vice-president of the Committee, but also against Secretary and other office bearers of the Society, otherwise, the office bearers once elected cannot be removed even if they indulge in acts of misappropriation and mala fides which may ultimately lead to winding up of the Society. That being not the intention of the Legislature, the power to move no-confidence motion against the person elected should necessarily vest with the body which has elected or which has inducted the individual in the office in the interest of the Society itself.

Accordingly, I hold that the general body of the Society is fully empowered to move motion of no-confidence, not only against the President and Vice-President of the Society but against any member of the governing society.

The second contention is that even assuming that without attempting that the No-Confidence Motion can be moved against the Secretary, the procedure prescribed under the Act has not been followed. I find force in this contention. The Managing Committee usurped the power in not only removing the Secretary from the office of the Managing Committee, but also did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act, for removal of a member of the Committee. On that ground, the Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 23-11 -1998 is quashed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.