BELLAMKONDA VENKATAPPAIAH Vs. KANAKALA SEETHARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though promotion of the spirit of cooperation should dominate the activity of a Cooperative Society, It is seen from a number of Writ petitions that have come up before this Court that quite a number of Cooperative Societies in the State are riddled with faction and the rival groups fully utilise (and abuse) the processes of the law to gain their ends and to dominate the Societies. The present case Is an Illustration of such a Society. The Cooperative Sub Registrar who was appointed as Election Officer to conduct elections to the Managing Committee of the Tyalluru Panchayat Samiti Cotton Growers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited. Pedakurapadu announced the election programme and issued notices on 2-1-1975 convening a ;meeting of the General Body of the Society on 25-1-1975. Pursuant to the programme announced by the Election Officer the seven petitioners and the thirteen others filed their nominations on 16-1-1975. The Election Officer, at the scrutiny held on 17-1-1975, rejected seven nominations as invalid. On 18-1-1975 six out of the remaining thirteen persons withdrew from the contest leaving the seven petitioners in the field. The seven petitioners would have been automatically declared elected on 25-1-1975. At that stage. the nine respondents in W. P, No. 3434/1975 and someothers filed W.P. No.288/1975 on 23-1-1975 and obtained an order of Interim stay of election from this Court. They did not choose to implead the petitioners as parties. On the same day they also filed O.S. No. 28/1975 in the District Munsif's Court, Sattenapalll on the same allegations and obtained an interim injunction restraining the Election Officer from conducting the election. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties to suit. Later the Petitioners got themselves impleaded as psrties to the Writ Petition and the suit. A petition to vacate the order of interim stay was filed In the High Court and my brother Muktadar j. vacated the Interim stay observing that the balance of convenience required that those who had been nominated should be returned unopposed. An application to vacate the Interim injunction was also filed In the District Munsif's Court, Despite the fact that the order of Muktadar J. was brought to the notice of the learned District Munsif he did not Immediately vacate the injunction. But after about three months, on 25-4 1975, he vacated the interim injunction holding that the suit Itself was not maintainable. The respondents filed C.M.A. No. 18/1975 in the District Court. Guntur and asked for interim injunction but that petition was dismissed. After the injunction was vacated the Election Officer issued a notice dated 17-5-1975 convening a meeting of the General Body on 5-6-1975 to elect the Managing Committee. Once again two members of the Society Ch. Meeraiah and Syed Razzummla filed W.P, No. 3066/19/5 on 26-5-1975 alleging that fifteen days clear notice of election was not given as contemplated by Rule 22 of the Rules. The Writ Petition was dismissed In llmine on 27-5-1975. On 5-6-1975 the meeting of the General Body was held and the petitioners were declared duly elected to the Managing Committee. The 1st petitioner was elected President of the Society and vhe 3rd petitioner as the Vice-President. On 5-6-1975 itself respondents I to 9 in W.P. No. 3434 of 1975 filed O.P. No. 5/1975 in the District Munsif's Court, Sattenapalli under Section 61(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, questioning the election on the ground that notices were not issued In accordance with the rules, etc. They also filed an application for a temporary Injunction restraining the petitioners from functioning as Directors of the Society and permitting the previous Managing Committee to function as such pending disposal of the Original Petition. The petitioners contended that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction pending a proceeding under S. 61(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act, The learned District Munsif, however, granted a temporary injunction holding that he had jurisdiction to do so under S. 62(4) of the Act. He found that respondents 1 to 9 herein had established a prima facie case that fiften days clear notice contemplated by the Rules had not been given. In order that the affairs of the Society might not be brought to a stand still the District Munsif observed that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies could extend the term of the previous Directors. W,P. No. 3434/1975 has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ to quash the order of the District Munsif in I. A, No. 631/1975. On 24-6-1975 two others (respondents I and 2 ln W.P. No. 3463/1975) filed O. P. No. 7/1975 in the District Munsifs Court, Sattenapalli and obtained an exparte interim injunction in I.A. No. 777/ 1975 restraining the petitioners from functioning as Directors of the Society. W.P. No. 3463/1975 has been filed by the petitioners questioning the order passed by the District Munsif in I.A. No. 777/1975.

(2.) Sri M. Ramaiih, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 62(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act had no application at all since it dealt with the powers of the Registrar and not with the powers of the District Munsif deciding an election dispute. There can be no two opinions about It and it is a matter for regret and surprise that the learned District Munsif thought that he had jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction under Section 62(4) of the Act. It is true that originally it was the Registrar himself that was competent to decide election disputes and all other disputes touching the business of a Society. In 1966, by an Amending Act provision was made for the decision of election disputes by the District Munsif. Merely because the Registrar was previously competent to grant injunctions even in election disputes it does not follow that the District Munsif has any such power under Sec. 62(4) of the Act which expressly refers to the Registrar only. This position is also conceded by Sri S. Dasaratharaml Reddy,learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Sri Dasaratharama Reddy, however urged that the District Munsif was competent to grant a temporary injunction under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C read with Sec. 141 C.P.C. He argued that the District Munsif exercising jurisdiction under Sec, 61 (3) of the Cooperative Societies Act functioned as a Court and not as a persona designata and Sec 141 C.P.C. enabled him to follow the procedure provided In the Civil Procedure Code in the proceeding under Sec. 61 (3) of the Cooperative Societies Act.