M BISKSHAPATHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are all members of the Fishermen Co-operative Society, Sanga Reddy filed this writ petition questioning the orders dt. 16-4-2001 passed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries. Medak District in expelling them from their membership of Primary Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, Sanga Reddy as confirmed by the Commissioner of Fisheries, Hyderabad in his proceedings No. 13229/ 121/2001, dt. 29-9-2001.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are as under : The petitioners are all fishermen by profession and caste the members of fishermen Co-operative Society-fourth respondent. The petitioners and others formed as Fisherman Co-operative Society in the year 1959 which was registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"). 49 members of the fourth respondent-society made a representation to the third respondent for deletion of certain members from the rolls of the society stating that some of the members of the society are Government employees and get disqualified under Bye-law 4(b). In response to the representation made by the members of the fourth respondent, the third respondent directed the Fisheries Development Officer, Sanga Reddy to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report. Pursuant to the same, the fisheries Development Officer, Sanga Reddy after making enquires, submitted a report along with General Body resolution passed by the fourth respondent Society, Dt. 5-11-2000. On verification of the report and also the resolution passed by the society, the third respondent Issued notice to 60 members calling upon them to submit their explanation as to why they should not be disqualified of their membership under Ss. 20 and 21 of the Act. In response to the show cause notice, 38 members submitted their replies. Being not satisfied with the explanations offered by 38 members, the third respondent passed Impugned orders dt. 16-4-2001. expelling 60 members from their membership of the fourth respondent-society. Aggrieved by the same, they filed an appeal before the second respondent-Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Hyderabad. The second respondent stayed the operation of the impugned order, dt. 16-4-2001. Against granting of stay, the President of the fourth respondent-society preferred an appeal before the first respondent who in turn allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the second respondent with a direction to examine the case in detail keeping in view the Bye-law 4(b) and pass appropriate orders. After remand, the second respondent by his order, dt. 4-9-2001 confirmed the admission of 49 members who are enrolled as members prior to the amendment of bye-law No.4(a)and (b). and they cannot be removed from the primary membership of the fourth respondent-society and 11 members are not eligible to be members of the society as they are having Government employment and admitted as members after the amendment of Bye-law 4(b), and with regard to 13 members, directed the assistant Director of Fisheries to verify the records whether 13 members are admitted as members in accordance with bye-law 4(a| and (b) and if their admission is not in accordance with the said bye law, take necessary action to remove them from the rolls of the membership of the fourth respondent-society. Aggrieved by the said orders, the fourth-respondent filed a revision before the first respondent. The first respondent after hearing the parties concerned through the impugned orders, dt. 29-9-2001 allowed the revision upholding the orders passed by the third respondent, dt. 16-4-2001 in removing 60 members from the rolls of the fourth respondent-society and with regard to 13 members, the third respondent was directed to go into the details of admission of 13 members as per the orders passed by the second respondent and take further action. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that as on the date when the petitioners were admitted as members there is no bar for their admission as members and subsequent employment will not disqualify them to be continued as members. The Impugned order passed by the third respondent disqualifying the petitioners from the membership under bye-law 4(a) and (b) is said to be illegal as the said bye-law is not retrospective in operation. Section 21-A of the Act makes a person ineligible to become a member of the committee but not a members of the society. Though the request for adjournment was made by the fourth respondent before the first respondent on 29-9-2001. the Commissioner without granting time, passed the Impugned orders, dt. 29-9-2001, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, dt. 29-9-2001 is in violation of principles of Natural Justice.

(3.) The third respondent filed a counter -affidavit stating that the order passed by the third respondent is in tune with the orders passed by this Court in a batch of Writ petition No. 15537/1997, dt. 13-12-2000 as confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 77/2000, dt.22-2-2001. Once the petitioners admitted that they are gainfully employed in various Departments they are not eligible to continue as members of the fourth-respondent society as the said society is meant for genuine fishermen who are eking out their livelihood by pursuing the fishing profession. Before passing the impugned order, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners. The petitioners have no vested right to continue as members of the fourth respondent society without they being solely depending upon the fishing profession. The order passed by the third respondent as confirmed by the first respondent does not suffer from any illegality.