K VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Pending writ petition questioning the selection and appointment of person-in- charge in place of the elected managing committee for a Cooperative Society, learned single Judge stayed the Government direction and ordered status quo which amounted to continuance of the District Collector who had, until then, been holding the Office of the person-in-charge, until the disposal of the writ petition. A petition to vacate the stay has been filed and the learned single Judge has disposed of the same by the following order:

(2.) Power to nominate, in the absence of an elected body, a person-in-charge is conferred by law upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Government of the State. Although any person can be so nominated and there may not be any impediment in nominating seventh respondent, generally speaking, one must not forget that exercise of discretion conferred by law is not a fiat or whim. It cannot be either arbitrary or capricious. It must appear to have been done fairly as fairness is the essence of all executive actions. The very fact that motive is attributed by the petitioner-appellant in postponing the elections of the Nellore Primary Society and political bias is alleged to have been afflicted, the intention to nominate a party member as the person-in-charge, in our view, shall go a long way to suggest that even a day's presence of the seventh respondent until the elections are held in accordance with law, shall precipitate more what the petitioner - appellant has apprehended and specifically alleged in the writ petition. No one who shall care to have a fair name as the administrator shall succumb to a nomination in such circumstances. No one who has to administer in accordance with law will allow his nominee to be dragged in a controversy leading to inference of presence of malice in the nomination by him. Both the Government of the State as well as the seventh respondent would have showed magnanimity and fairness by nominating some one other than seventh respondent if the District Collector's pre-occupations were not permitting him to discharge his duties as the person-in-charge of the Society. It seems somewhat curious why a District Collector will come forward to say that he had some such pre-occupations which would not permit him to discharge a statutory obligation. Why should a Collector not suggest an alternative as fair as the presence of an authority like him as the person-in-charge until the elections are held and yield to the nomination of a party man as the person-in-charge?. These appear to create doubts about the role of the District Collector as well. We are satisfied that it is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its power under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the impugned order and interfere with the Government's nomination of the seventh respondent as the person-in-charge pending disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:

(3.) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is restored to the file. Let the same be placed for final orders after three months, within which period as directed by the learned single Judge, the respondent shall complete the elections.