P NAGALAKSHMAIAH Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner was elected as a Member of Kallur Weavers Co-operative Productions and Sale Society Limited about 25years back and was elected as President to the said society on 8.2.2003 and on 2.9.2003 he was elected as a Director of the 4th Respondent Society. While so, a No Confidence Motion was sought to be moved against one Sri Balla Chandra Nageshwara Rao, who' was elected as Chairman of the 5th respondent and the 2nd respondent has issued notice dated 24.2.2005 with the resolution of 16 members seeking to convene a meeting of the 4th respondent- Society so as to move No Confidence Motions, on 18.3.2005. It is averred that the said Balla Chandra Nageswara Rao has tendered his resignation, and thus the No Confidence Motion has become infructuous. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent, who is representative of 4th respondent, ought to have taken steps under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for brevity the Act) to fill up the vacant post, but instead the 3rd respondent issued an order in Rc. No.2728/05/Al dated 18.3.2005 removing the said Balla Chandra Nageswara Rao from Chairmanship of 4th respondent, much contrary to Section 34-A of the Acts, inasmuch as due to the resignation of the said Balla Chandra Nageswara Rao, no cause survived for the No Confidence Motion. It is further submitted that Section 34-A(11) of the Act deals with filling up the vacancy in the manner prescribed, which is further defined in Section 2(1) of the Act. It is further their case that under Rule 22 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for brevity the Rules), the Deputy Registrar who is the Election Officer shall appoint not less than 7 days prior to the polling, but no such notification is issued and the 3rd respondent assuming himself as the Election Officer has declared the 5th respondent as elected to the post of Chairman of APCO. It is further submitted that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-D, the election notification shall be issued not less than 3 days before the date of polling and sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 deals with the nomination of the candidate and, therefore, for the violation of Rule 22 of the Rules, the election of 5th respondent is totally in derogation of the Rules and provisions of the Act. It is their further case that the 3rd respondent who is nominated by the 2nd respondent to conduct No Confidence Motion and a fresh election without following the procedure, as contemplated in Rule 22-D of the Rules, with appointing an Election Officer not less than 7 days prior to the date of poll, the entire transaction is without power and authority. Therefore, filed the writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in supervising and conducting the meeting on 18.3.2005 and the resultant decision thereon electing the 5th respondent as the Chairperson of the 4th respondent society as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, without the authority of law, contrary to A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder and also in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the 3rd respondents herein not to give effect to the same and conduct fresh election by following due process of law.

(2.) The sum and substance of the counter filed by the 4th respondent is that elections of the 4th respondent Co-operative Society were held in September, 2003 and the Directors were elected by the Members of the 4th respondent Society and the Committee elected the 5th petitioner as Chairman. It is further averred that consequent on the notice to the 3rd respondent by the 5th respondent to move a no confidence move against the 5th petitioner, the 3rd respondent fixed the date as 18.3.2005 for the Committee Meeting and at 11.00 a.m. meeting was held and majority of the Directors voted in favour of the no confidence move and thus the 3rd respondent, at 3.00 p.m. declared elected the 5th respondent, as the Chairman. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent on the notice issued by the 5th respondent, issued a notice on 24.2.2005 to all the Directors and fixed the date as 18.3.2005, in terms of Rule 24(A)(2) and declared the result of the motion under Rule 24(A)(4).

(3.) The sum and substance of the counter filed by the 5th respondent is that under Section' 34-A(13) of the Act, no notice of a motion of no confidence shall be made within one year of the assumption of office by a President and Vice-President. It is submitted that on verification of the move of No Confidence Motion, the Commissioner and Director of Handlooms and Textiles, 2nd respondent, fixed a meeting on 18.3.2005 at 11.00 a.m. and 23 out of 24 members have attended the meeting and 19 have voted in favour of the no confidence move and at that stage, a letter of resignation addressed to the Commissioner and Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Hyderabad was handed over to the Election Officer/Registrar, by the 5th petitioner. Thus denied that the No Confidence Motion has become infructuous. It is further submitted that the resignation was not handed over to a proper person for acceptance. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the election of the Chairman as a result of carrying out the No Confidence Motion should be conducted as per Rule 22 of the Rules is totally misconstrued, but since it being filling up the resultant vacancy of the Chairman, consequent to the carrying out of No Confidence Motion, the procedure envisaged under Rule 24(A)(4) is applicable. It is further submitted that the situation is governed in the instant case by Section 34(A)(5) and (11) of the Act read with Rule 24-A(4), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) of the Rules and therefore, his unanimous election as the Chairman is lawful and valid. It is further contended that the question of application of Rule 22-D(2) of the Rules does not arise. It is further submitted that under Rule 11, if there is no contest, the Registrar shall declare the candidate as elected and, therefore, when there was no contest for his election as Chairman, the declaration of results at 3.00 p.m. on 18.3.2005 is perfectly lawful and valid and, therefore, his assumption of charge consequent to his unanimous election, is also lawful. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.