GOTTIPATI RAMARAO Vs. SPECIAL CADRE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES APDDCF, A.P. RASHTRA KARSHAKA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are challenging the proceedings dated 23 -8 -1991 issued by the first respondent (Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Co -operative Societies, A.P.D.D.C.F., Hyderabad) appointing five persons as Persons -in -charge to manage the affairs of the Appapuram Milk Producers Co -operative Society till 11 -11 -1991 or till an elected committee assumes charge or subject to modified orders that may be issued, whichever is earlier. By the said proceedings respondents No. 2 to 6 were appointed as Persons -in -charge. Amongst them the 6th respondent is the Supervisor of Milk Producers Co -operative Union Limited, Vadlamoodi. The petitioners have no objection for the inclusion of the fifth respondent. The petitioners are seeking for a declaration that they along with fifth respondent shall be allowed to act as persons -in -charge of the Appapuram Milk Producers Co -operative Society Limited.

(2.) THE petitioners and the fifth respondent were the elected members of the Managing Committee of Appapuram Milk Producers Co -operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). Their term of office had expired on 10 -11 -1988. They were being appointed from time to time as persons -in -charge to manage the affairs of the society as there was no election to the society from that date. However, on 18 -5 -1991, the sixth respondent was appointed as person -in -charge to look after the management of the society till 5 -8 -1991. But the fifth respondent actually assumed the charge of office on 5 -8 -'91 as evident from a letter addressed by him to the first petitioner asking him to handover the records on 12 -8 -1991. While so, the first respondent, on the recommendation made by the General Manager of the Guntur District Milk Producers Co -operative Union Limited, again appointed, by his order dated 12 -8 -1991, the petitioners and the fifth respondent as persons -in -charge to manage the affairs of the society for a period of three months from the date of the order or till an elected committee assumes charge or subject to the modified orders that may be issued by him. Within a few days thereafter i.e., on 23 -8 -1991, the 1st respondent cancelled the order dated 12 -3 -1991 and appointed Respondents 2 to 6 as persons -in charge.

(3.) I will now refer to the reasons spelt out in the impugned order dated 23 -8 -1991 and in the counter -affidavit filed by the first respondent. The first respondent states that it had come to his notice that the ex -elected committee did not manage the affairs of the society during their tenure of three years properly. Except this bald allegation there is not even a brief reference to the irregularities, if any committed by the petitioners during their tenure of three years or thereafter. Between 12th August and 23rd August, 1991, there was no material before the first respondent excepting the petition of respondents No. 2 to 4 to form a bonafide opinion that the petitioners, as members of the former elected committee, indulged in acts of mis -management of the society. As already noticed, even the petition submitted by Respondents 2 to 4 does not disclose any particular acts of mis -conduct or irregularities.