PRAVEENA SREERAMINENI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, challenging GO Ms. No. 368. Agriculture and Co-operation (Co-operation IV) Department, dated 29-12-99, by which the powers that were delegated earlier to the officers subordinate to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by GO Ms. No. 890, Food and Agriculture, dated 29-3-1965 and GO Ms. No. 34, Food and Agriculture (Co-op. IV) Department, dated 16-1-89, were modified and again reconferred on the principal officer i.e., Registrar of Co-operative Societies in respect of five Societies, mentioned therein.

(2.) The learned single Judge found that for the sake of administrative convenience, the Government had carved out an exception of reconferring the powers upon the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (hereinafter referred to as 'the Registrar') in respect of five societies mentioned in the GO, which powers, in fact, were exercisable by him and were delegated earlier to the officers subordinate to him, keeping in view the number of members in the Societies. The Government is well within its limits and jurisdiction to carve out the exception of reconferring the powers upon the Registrar in respect of certain societies, and empowering him alone to exercise those powers and not the officers subordinate to him, who were earlier delegated those powers, Generally, for smooth and efficient running of the administration, and to unburden the work pressure that exists on the principal officer, his powers are delegated to the officers subordinate him.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the Government had earlier delegated the powers of the Registrar in respect of all the Societies to the officers subordinate to him, and the action of respondents in now reconferring those powers again on the principal officer in respect of five societies mentioned in the GO, the members of which, admittedly, are persons holding high and dominant official positions, is arbitrary and bad in law. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the action of the respondents in classifying the societies on the basis of the official positions held by the members, is an unreasonable classification, and as such, cannot be sustained. He further contended that taking away the powers delegated upon the officers subordinate to the Registrar, and again reconferring the powers upon him by the impugned GO in respect of five societies mentioned therein, and excluding the other societies, is arbitrary and illegal.