Pilli Bal Raj and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Others

S.R. Nayak, J.—In this writ petition, the validity of the action of the 2nd respondent in amending bye-law 4(a) of the Fishermen Co-operative Society of Kolanur, Odela Mandal of Karimnagar District is called in question.

Few facts germane to the decision be noted as under. The petitioners are the members of the Fishermen Co-operative Society, Kolanur. The Government of Andhra Pradesh - the first respondent herein - after a serious dialogue and interaction with the office bearers of the Andhra Pradesh Fishermen Co-operative Societies Rights Protection Committee, Hyderabad, found that several full-time employees became members of the Fishermen Co-operative Societies and they are exploiting the real fishermen and thereby depriving the source of livelihood of those real fishermen. Therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed the 2nd respondent to take corrective measures in that regard. At this stage itself, we may point out that there is a controversy between the parties. According to the petitioners, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed the 2nd respondent to take steps to amend the bye-laws u/s 16(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"), whereas, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh only directed the 2nd respondent to look into the matter and take necessary action. Whether the version of the petitioner is correct or the version of the respondents is correct, it may not have much bearing to the decision we propose to take. Therefore, we do not propose to resolve this factual controversy. The Government order is not made available to us.

The action taken by the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent u/s 16(5} of the Act amending Bye-law 4{a) is assailed only on two grounds. The first ground is that the State Government has no power to direct the 2nd respondent to take steps u/s 16(5) of the Act to amend the bye-law. The second ground is that before taking the action u/s 16(5) of the Act, the procedure envisaged under the said sub-section was not gone through. In other words, the amendment was brought about without issuing notice to the society.

Sub-section (5) of Section 16 reads:

"(5) If in the opinion of the Registrar, an amendment of the bye-laws of a society is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society or of the Co-operative movement, he may, in the manner prescribed, call upon the society to make any amendment within such time as he may specify. If the society fails to make such amendment within the time so specified, the Registrar may, after giving the society an opportunity of making its representation, register such amendment and forward the society by registered post a copy of the amendment together with a certificate signed by him; such a certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered; and such an amendment shall have the same effect as an amendment of any bye-law made by the society.''''

It is true that the power conferred upon the Registrar under sub-section (5) of the Act is conditional in the sense that he is not competent to effect the amendment of the bye-law without first inviting the concerned society to amend the bye-law and giving an opportunity to it to have its say in the matter. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is categorically stated that before the impugned amendment was brought about, the petitioner-society was served with notice contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act and the society did not submit any reply. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the procedure contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act was not gone through by the 2nd respondent before the impugned amendment was brought about is not well-founded.

The contention of the petitioners that the State Government has no power to direct the 2nd respondent to amend the bye-law u/s 16(5) of the Act is also not well-founded. We would have appreciated this contention of the petitioner in the absence of Section 131 of the Act. Section 131 of the Act confers powers on the Government to issue orders or directions generally or in any particular matter and if the Government chooses to issue such directions or orders, an obligation is cast on the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to comply with such orders and directions and to report compliance to the Government. It cannot be said that the power conferred upon the Government u/s 131(1) of the Act is a general power not covering the specific power conferred upon the Registrar u/s 16(5) of the Act. We say this because, the phrase occurring "any particular matter" in Section 131 of the Act is very significant, and it opens the key to understand the provisions of Section 16(5) of the Act. It cannot be said that the matter covered by sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act is not a "matter", either general or particular, under the Act. Therefore, even assuming that the Government, in fact, had directed the Registrar to carry out the amendment, no exception can be taken to the action of the Government. However, as pointed out supra, there was a controversy and according to the counter filed by the respondents, the Government only directed the 2nd respondent to look into the matter and take necessary steps. The counter also discloses that after this direction was received by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent had again a dialogue and interaction with the General Secretary of A.P. Fishermen Cooperative Societies Rights Protection Committee. Apart from this, the action cannot be assailed on the ground of arbitrariness also. The materials placed before us clearly satisfy us that the impugned amendment is intended to achieve the laudable object in the sense that it is intended to weed-out those full-time employees who have become members of the Fishermen Co-operative Societies and to help only those fishermen who depend on fishing for their livelihood.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.