AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The first petitioner had been elected as President and petitioners 2 to 5 had been elected as Directors of the Kolimenu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society in the year 1995. The Managing Committee of the society was superseded by the competent authority on 15-4-1997 on the ground that the Committee failed to convene general body meeting within the stipulated period. Surprisingly, the members of the Managing Committee who had failed to discharge the duties in accordance with law were made persons-in-charge of the society. If these persons had to be appointed as persons-in-charge then what was the necessity of removing them by superseding the society. It appears that, as an elected body the petitioners were answerable to their electorate, but being appointed as persons-in-charge after the committee was superceded they were without any responsibility. They were appointed as persons-in-charge from 1-4-1999, the order was however cancelled on 2-4-1999. This order of cancellation had been challenged by way of a writ petition being WP No.7516 of 1999, the order was quashed by the Court on the ground that no notice had been given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. They were restored as persons-in-charge and on 10-6-1999 the respondents issued a show-cause notice for submitting explanation with regard to replacing the Chief Executive of the society without obtaining prior approval of the District Co-operative Officer, Kakinada. According to the petitioners, they submitted explanation on 18-6-1999. The respondents did not take any action but issued another notice on 3-7-1999. This was also replied on 14-7-1999. On considering the objections the impugned order was passed by the competent authority replacing the Managing Committee by Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies/Extension Officer, Rural Development," Mandal Parishad, Tuni as person-in-charge. This order has been challenged by way of this writ petition.
Neither in the writ petition nor during the arguments by learned Counsel for the petitioners this Court has been informed as to what was the right of the petitioners to continue as persons-in-charge. Section 32(7)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act lays down as under :
"32(7)(a). If there is no committee or in the opinion of the Government or, the Registrar, it is not possible to call a genera! 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 a the society for a period not exceeding six months and the Government may, on their own and the Registrar with the previous approval of the Government, extend from time to time, such period beyond six months, so however that the aggregate period include the extended period if any, shall not exceed three years."
A bare perusal of this sub-section shows that it is the power of the Registrar to appoint a person-in-charge when there is no managing committee. The petitioners were appointed as persons-in-charge but for omissions and commissions they were replaced. Earlier their appointment was cancelled which was quashed by the Court on the ground that principles of natural justice have not been complied with and no notice was given to the petitioners before the appointment was cancelled. In the present case, a show-cause notice has been given reply has been received and considered. Now the petitioners want that this Court should hold an enquiry and find out whether the charges levelled against the petitioners were true or false. That cannot be the scope of the present writ petition, particularly so in view of the fact that petitioners have no right whatsoever to continue as persons-in-charge. In my view, when a committee is superseded for violation of law or for any illegal acts, those members or such committee should never be made persons-in-charge.
The Counsel for the petitioners has relied on a judgment of this Court in G. Rama Rao v. Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 1991 (3) ALT 532. This judgment is not applicable to the present case on the ground that, in that case no notice had been given to already appointed persons-in-charge. In the present case, a notice has been given and the reply has been considered. The learned Counsel for the respondents has also drawn my attention to a judgment in WA No.291 of 1996. This judgment also lays down that, u/s 32(7)(a) Registrar has power to appoint a person or persons-in-charge to mange the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding six months. .
For the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.