KERETI SRINIVASULU S O YELLAMANDA Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPRATIVE SOCIETIES KANDUKUR PRAKASAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent - Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kandukur, dated 12-5-2005 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was the elected President of The Shirdi Sai Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Limited whose term of office expired on 12-5-2005. Much prior to the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee of the society, a resolution was passed requesting the 1st respondent to conduct the elections. However, the 1st respondent failed to conduct the elections before the expiry of the term of the office of the Managing Committee and therefore the Managing Committee passed another resolution dated 7-5-2005 requesting the 1st respondent to continue the existing Managing Committee till the elections are conducted and new body is constituted for carrying out the affairs of the society. In pursuance thereof, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 9-5-2005 nominated the existing Managing Committee to continue for a period of six months w.e.f. 13-5-2005 till the elections are conducted and newly elected committee assumes charge, or until further orders are issued whichever is earlier. However three days after, on 12-5-2005 the impugned proceedings were issued by the 1st respondent cancelling the earlier order dated 9-5-2005 and appointing the Assistant Registrar/Superintendent of the Divisional Co-operative Office, Kandukur, as Person-in-charge Chairman for a period of three months from the date of expiry of the term of the elected Managing Committee or until the elections are conducted and the Elected Committee assumes charge or until further orders whichever is earlier. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition contending that the same is contrary to Section 32 (7) (a) of The A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') apart from being opposed to the principles of natural justice since the said order was passed without any prior notice to the existing Managing Committee. It is also alleged that since the impugned order was passed under the instructions of the 2nd respondent and evidently the 1st respondent failed to independently exercise the power conferred under Section 32 (7) of the Act, the impugned order is ex facie bad, illegal and arbitrary. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that after expiry of the term of the elected body on 12-5-2005, the 1st respondent appointed the petitioner and other members of the existing committee as Person-in-charge Committee of the society to look after the business of the society. However, it was found that, on a representation made by the members of the society alleging fraud and misrepresentation against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ordered enquiry by the District Co-operative audit Officer. Ongole vide proceedings dated 10-1-2005 and in pursuance thereof, areport dated 11-3-2005 was sumitted recommending regular enguiry under Section 51 of the Act.

(2.) Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kandukur was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 6-5-2005 to inquire into the allegations. Having came to know of the said proceedings, particularly the preliminary enquiry report in which it was found that the allegation of fraud against the petitioner was proved, the impugned proceedings were issued cancelling the earlier order dated 9-5-2005 and appointing the third respondent as Person-in-charge of the society. It is also stated that the petitioner and other members attended the enquiry conducted by the District Co-operative Audit Officer, Ongole and in the said enquiry the allegations against the petitioner were found to be proved and accordingly a regular enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was ordered in which the petitioner will be again afforded an opportunity as provided under the law. It is alleged that the petitioner had not handed over the records either to the third respondent or to the enquiry officer so far which is in violation of the provisions of the Act. Hence, the petitioner who had not approached the Court with clean hands is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, and perused the material on record. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12-5-2005 itself shows that the same was passed on the basis of the letter of the Joint Registrar dated 7-5-2005. In the counter-affidavit, it has been explained that it was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent by letter dated 7-5-2005 that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Co-operative Officer, Ongole, it was found that the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation made against the petitioner were established and consequently a regular enquiry under Section 51 of the Act has already been ordered.