P CHANDRA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Writ Petition 23411 of 1999 are the members of the BHEL (MIG) Employees Co-Operative Society Limited, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Society), which was registered under the provisions of the A.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity the Act). The main objects of the society are to carry trade, building, buying and selling, hiring and letting and developing the land in accordance with the co-operative principles for the benefit of its members viz., to give loans to members for construction of new dwelling houses. The Managing Committee of the society was elected on 27.9.1998, that when the Managing Committee was not acting as per the bye-laws and in the interest of its members, some of the Members of the Society, have filed an application before the Deputy Registrar, Divisional Co-Operative officer, Hyderabad West - 4th respondent herein, which was registered as Arbitration Case No. 18 of 1999 and in exercise of the powers under Sec. 62(4) of the Act, passed an order directing the Managing Committee to cancel the cable TV activity. It is further observed by him that without amending the bye-laws and without seeking the approval of General Body, cable TV activity cannot be taken up by the Society and that order has become final. It is further claimed by the petitioners that under Sec. 32(1) of the Act, the Committee at any time call a General Meeting of the Society, but such meeting shall be held within six months of the end of the Co-Operative year and Sec. 32(1)(A) reads that if the General Meeting is not convened in accordance with Sub-Sec.(1) of Sec. 32, the Members of the Committee shall cease to hold the office on the day next after the first day on which the General Meeting should have been held and it shall be competent for the Registrar, not withstanding anything in the bye-laws, to call such General Meeting in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2.) Sec. 2(c) of the Act defines Co-Operative Year as the period commencing on the first day of the July of any year and ending with the 30th day of June of the succeeding year, or in the case of any society or class of societies, the accounts of which are made up to any other date with the previous sanction of the Registrar, the year ending with such date. Subsequent to amendment of this Section, the definition of Co-Operative Year reads to mean as the period commencing on the first day of the April of any year and ending with the 31st day of March of the succeeding year. It is further submitted that the petitioner Society has taken the accounts year as the Co-Operative Year i.e. from 1st April to 31st March and as per the account audit, the petitioner society has taken Accounts year as the Co-Operative year. If the above co-operative year is taken into account, the society should have conducted General Body Meeting in the month of September, 1999 i.e. within a period of six months from the date of end of Co-Operative year i.e. by 30th September, but it was not conducted as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, by virtue of the operation of Sub-Sec. (1)(A) to Sec. 32of the Act, the Managing Committee automatically ceases to hold office, but to circumvent the provision of law, on the basis of the representation filed by the 2nd respondent, the first respondent issued the impugned order while exercising power under Sec. 123 of the Act, granting post facto permission to the Society for having conducted Annual General Meeting on 24.10.1995 under GO Rt. No. 257 Housing (CH) Department dated 28.10.1999. This order exempted the Society under Sec. 12 of the Act.

(3.) The correctness of this order that is assailed in this writ petition contending that Sec. 32(1) of the Act makes it clear that the Managing Committee has to convene meeting within a period of six months from the end of the Co-Operative Year and failure to convene the same, will result in cessation of Members of the Committee, next day under Sec. 32(1A) of the Act. It is also contended that the Government has no power under Sec. 123 of the Act to grant post facto exemption to conduct General Body Meeting after expiry of six months before the end of Co-Operative Year, muchless it has the power to grant such exemption for disqualification incurred by the Members of the Managing Committee. Therefore, the Government has not properly exercised the power conferred under Sec. 123 of the Act, which is not in consonance of the legislative intent.