THOTTADI CHINA SATYANARAYANA Vs. ADDURI RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether a no-confidence motion could be moved against the president of the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Urban Bank and another elected in his place in the absence of a specific provision in the ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964 under which it is registered and the rules and Bye-Laws made thereunder. Pending the writ petition the writ petitioner against whom no-confidence motion was passed sought a direction against the respondents to continue the petitioner as the President and not to treat the 3rd respondent who was elected in his place as the President of Co-operative Urban Bank which was refused by ur learned brother Raghuvir, J. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred Writ Appeal No. 217/80.

(2.) Durga Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Vijayawada is a society registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The General Body of the said society elected 7 Board of Directors on 31-3-1978 for a period of three years and the Board of Directois in turn elected the petitioner as its President on the same day. The petitioner assumed office and was discharging his duties as the President of the Board of Directors. F've of the members of the Board of Directors moved the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vijayawada to call for a meeting of the Board of Directors to consider a motion of no confidence against the President. At the meeting held on 11-2-80 the petitioner raised an objection that the meeting was not validly convened and that the subject of no-confidence against the President was not in the Agenda- The Deputy Registrar, by a notice dated 22-2-80 directed the Secretary of the Cooperative Urban Bank to convene a meeting of the Board of Directors within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the notice for cnsidering the specific subject of no confidence motion against the President of the Bank. The 2nd respondent, inspite of the protest of the petitioner issued a notice dated 23-2-80 convening a meeting of the Board of Directors on 27-2-80 to consider the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Five of the members of the Board of Directors met and without any one presiding over the meeting, passed a resolution of no confidence against the petitioner. On the same day another meeting was held by the very same five Directors at 5 p m at which they elected the third respondent as the President of the Society. The petitioner contends that the Board of Directors have no jurisdiction to move or consider a motion of no confidence against the President of the Board of Directors of the Bank and the meeting convened for the purpose was illegal and void and adopting the resolution of no confidence and subsequently convening another meeting and electing the third respondent as the President of the Board of Directors was wholly without jurisdiction. He therefore prayed fora direction to treat the petitioner as the President of the Co-operative Urban Bank and not to recognise the third respondent as its President.

(3.) The facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that there is no specific provision either in the Andhra Pradesh Co-operativa Societies Actor in the Rules made thereunder or in the Bye-laws of of the Durga Co operative Urban Bank Limited specifically empowering either the Board of Directors or the General Body of the Society to move a motion of no-confidence and remove the President of the Board of Directors by adopting a resolution of the Board of Directors. It is however contended that as the President of the Board of Directors is elected by the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors has an implied authority vested in them to remove him by adopting a resolution of no-confidence. To appreciate the contention it is necessary to bear in mind certain provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. Sec.30 of the Act vests the ultimate authority of a society in its General Body. So far as It is relevant for our present purpose Sec.30 reads as follows: