VELIVELA SIVANAND Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are President, Vice President and Directors of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited (PACS), Bantumilli, Krishna district, the 5th respondent herein. They were elected in the elections held for the 5th respondent -Society in January, 2013. It is submitted that they are the sympathisers of the erstwhile ruling party and due to political rivalry at the instance of the politicians of the ruling party and also some of the members of the Society, who are unhappy with the election of the petitioners as Directors, the official machinery was incited to find ways and means to supersede the petitioners by one method or the other. In furtherance of the said mala fide intention, the 1st respondent visited the office of the 5th respondent on 10 -7 -2014, verified the books, bundled all the records of the 5th respondent -Society including the minutes book of its committee meetings, General Body meetings, cash book etc., took them away without even issuing any receipt to the office -bearers of the Society.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16 -8 -2014 to all the petitioners stating that the perusal of the books of the Society revealed that meetings of the Managing Committee held on 23 -8 -2013 and 25 -02 -2014 were not closed and meetings held on 15 -5 -2014, 21 -5 -2014 and 30 -6 -2014 had no quorum and were not closed and also stating that the General Body meeting of the Society which was to be held for the 2nd half year ended on 31 -3 -2014 was also not held. On the aforesaid grounds mentioned in the notice, the 1st respondent sought explanation from the petitioners and other directors as to why the Managing Committee should not be superseded under Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the APCS Act, for short).

(3.) ON receiving the said notices, it is said that the petitioners by letters dated 02 -9 -2014 requested the 1st respondent to furnish them the copies of the records which were taken away by the 1st respondent during the inspection so that the petitioners can file their reply after perusing the documents. They also made representations to the 4th respondent setting out the factual circumstances under which the 1st respondent issued the show cause notice. They also made applications under the Right to Information Act relating to the conduct of inspection and seizure of all the records by the 1st respondent.