S SANYASI APPA RAO Vs. OFFICER INCHARGE OF THE AMADALAVALASA CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .These two contempt petitions were heard together in as much as they arise out of an order of stay given by this Court in C M P No. 4677 of 1966 in Writ Petition No. 852 of 1966, of an election to the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd., Srikakulam District (herein-after called the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Society). In order to determine the question whether any contempt of the orders of this Court Were committed and if so, by whom, it is necessary to narrate the vexed election squabbles in this society. It is therefore convenient to set out first the facts alleged in Contempt Petition No. 11 of 1966 and subsequently to the other contempt petition. For convenience sake, the petitioner and the respondents will be referred to hereafter as they are arrayed in Contempt Petition No. 11 of 1966. The Amadalavalasa Co-operative Society constructed a sugar factorv in 1962 With the financial assistance of the State Bank and the Financfal Corporation on the guarantee of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The affairs of the factory were being managed by a nominated body of Directors, of which the 2nd respondent, B. Rajagopala Rao. M. P. was the Chairman for two successive season, namely.

(2.) 1962-63 and 1963-64 On the allegation that the 2nd respondent committed grave irregularities and utilised the funds of the factory to the tune of several lakhs for his own benefit, the nominated body Was superseded in October 1964. A Special Officer was appointed by the Government to look after the affairs of the factory for the crushing season 1964-65 onwards. The 2nd respondent therafter filed a Writ PEtition No. 1726 of 1964, challenging the order made by the Registrar of Co-oparative Societies, dated 16th October, 1964 in purported exercis of his powers under section 32(7)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, appointing a person to manage the affairs of the society for a period of 4 months from 19th October,1964. The reason given for making Border is that until a decision regarding the applicability of rule 22 is taken by the Government. It is not possible to hold elections of the managing committee, which reason was alleged to be irrelevant for appointing a person to manage the affairs Gopalakrishnan Nair, J., dismissed the writ petition holding that it was reasonable to expect the Registrar to Wait for some time to recommend and persuade the Government and obtain the final decision as to whether rule 22 should be applied to the instant case or not, and consequently the grounds stated for the impugned order were not extraneous or irrelevant or untenable. The learned Judge also thought that the period of 4 months should be reasonably sufficient to obtain a decision of the Government as to Whether they should apply rule 22 to the society or not and to hold the elections. Against this order, Writ Appeal No. 146 of 1964 was filed which was disposed of by Manohar Pershad.C.J., and Mirza, J., on 1st February, 1966, because it was admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant therein that on the recommendetion of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Government made rule 22 appcable to this society along with other societies, and as result, there was nothing more to be decided in the Writ appeal. The Bench however directed the Registrar to conduct the elections as early as possible, but by a date not exceeding 4 months from that date. The 1st respondent, B. Satyanarayana, was appointed as the Returning Officer to conduct tbe elections to the committee. In pursuance of this direction, the Special Officer drew up a programme of elections, issued notices fixed the dates for nomination 19th May, 1966, scrutiny on 20th May, 1966, and the election on 30th May, 1966.

(3.) The 2nd respondent however filed a Writ Petition No. 747 of 1966 on 10th May, 1966 alleging that the Special Officer had not issued notices to 321 members, Who were on the rolls of the society continually for the past 5 to 6 years, which omission, he said, Was mala fide and was a deliberate attempt to get over the directions of the High Court to hold the elections within 4 months With the object of facilitating any one of the 321 members to file a Writ petition and obtain stay. It was therefore prayed that the Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Special Officer to give 20 days prior notice to those 321 members and hold the elections on. the appointed day, i.e., 30th May, 1966. Along with the petition, C. M. P. No. 4395 of 1966 was also filed for interim orders. On 18th May, 1966 as both the parties showed their anxiety to see that the elections were held with in 4 months' period as directed earlier by the Division Bench of this Court, it was deemed unnecessary to pass any orders in that C.M.P. Thereafter the petitioner in this contempt petition along with four others filed a Writ Petition No. 808 of 1966 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the officer in charge not to hold the election on 30th May, 1966 but to hold the same after applying the Co-operative Societies Act, Rules and the By-laws of the Amadalavalasa Co-operative Society after rectifying the illegalities sworn in the affidavit. The defects pointed out by the petitioners Were not confined to the 321 non-cane growing members alone referred to in W.P. No. 747 of 1966, but it Wasalleged that a large number of over 2,000 personswere not included in the list, that about 200 cane-growing members did not also receive notices for the election and the even the others who received the notices had got them only on 16th May, 1966 at the earliest. It Was further averred that these notices showed that the members had to bring the notices with them, which meant that no member could attend or participate in the election unless he received a noticeand produced it. A. C.M.P. No. 4598 of 1966 was filed on 23rd May, 1966 for interim relief by way of stay of election but the petition was rejected on 24th May 1966 but with a direction that the Officer-in-charge shall issue notices to the 2,000 and odd persons, if they are qualified for membership and if they have not been served with notices of the date of poll.