CHINNA MALLAIAH Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES NALGONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of Fishermen Co-operative Society, Surepalli. In the Gram Sabha Meeting held on 3-11-2000, eighteen ineligible members of the Society were identified. First respondent therefore issued proceedings dt. 27-4-2001 removing the ineligible members from the Society. The same was affirmed by Government of Andhra Pradesh by order dt. 27-9-2001. Aggrieved by the same, eleven persons filed Writ Petition No. 22603 of 2001. This Court by judgment dt. 26-12-2001 in W.P.Nos. 22603 and 25132 of 2001 set aside the order of first respondent on the ground that as per amended sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) it is only the general body which can remove ineligible members and therefore first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass order of removal. The same has become final.

(2.) The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 61 of the Act raising a dispute as to eligibility of some members of the Society. By order dt. 4-8-2003 first respondent, who is also functional Registrar of the Fishermen Cooperative Societies, refused to exercise jurisdiction holding that he is bound by the orders of this Court made in W.P.Nos. 22603 and 25132 of 2001. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 76(1) of the Act before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal, which returned the appeal stating that the appeal is not maintainable as there is no order passed by first respondent. In this back ground, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of first respondent dt. 4-8-2003 as illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) A counter-affidavit is filed at the preliminary stage itself by first respondent stating that he passed the impugned order keeping in view the order of this Court in W.P.Nos. 22603 and 25132 of 2001, dt. 26-12-2001. The contention raised in the counter-affidavit suffers from fallacy for the reasons as mentioned hereunder.