DARNAM LAXMINARAYANA S/O SAYANNA Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SIRCILLA, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The issues that arise in the Writ Petition are whether it is mandatory for respondent No.1 to have enclosed copies of No Confidence Motion moved against the petitioners along with the notice of meeting and whether non-enclosure of copy of No Confidence Motion has vitiated the initiation of proceedings for No Confidence Motion.

(3.) Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the President and the Vice-President of respondent No.2-bank, respectively. They have received a notice from respondent No.1 in Rc.No.833/12/C, dated 11.12.2012, under Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Co- Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and Rule-24-A of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1964. It is stated in the said notice that eight Executive Committee members of respondent No.2-bank have submitted No Confidence Motion notice, dated 07.12.2012, to respondent No.1 against the petitioners and therefore, an Executive Committee meeting was called for, on 27.12.2012 at 11 am, under Section 34-A (3) of the Act for discussion and voting in the office of respondent No.2. A direction was, therefore, issued to the Executive Committee members to attend the meeting on the appointed date at the designated place. This notice is questioned by the petitioners in this Writ Petition. The solitary ground on which the impugned notice is questioned is that the same has not been accompanied by a copy of No Confidence Motion, stated to have been moved by the eight Executive Committee members against the petitioners.