ALLURI VENKATA LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAJU Vs. AKULA YEARLA VENKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for staying all further proceedings in claim suit No. 688/65-66 on the file of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhimavaram. The claim suit before the Deputy Registrar relates to the validity of the election of the members of the Executive Committee of the large sized Co-operative Credit Society, Dirusumarru, in Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Before the Deputy Registrar it was argued by the petitioners before me that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim dispute after the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act (XIV of 1966) was passed. That objection was overruled by the Deputy Registrar. An appeal was preferred to the District Munsif, Bhimavaram, who affirmed the view of the Deputy Registrar and against that order, W.P. No. 133 of 1967 was filed. Pending disposal of that writ petition the stay of further proceedings before the Deputy Registrar is prayed for.

(2.) The main contention of Sri Gangadhara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that under section 14 of the amending Act, which amended section 61 of the parent Act, disputes relating to or in connection with any election to a committee of such class of societies as may by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette be specified in that behalf referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 31, shall be referred for decision to the District Munsif having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the Society is situated. It is not disputed that by notification dated 22nd August, 1966, the Society in question was so notified by the Government Therefore, argues the learned Counsel, the forum for entertaining the election dispute is the District Munsif but not the Deputy Registrar.

(3.) This position is controverted on behalf of the respondent by Sri Dhanurbanudu. He argues firstly, that the amending Act is not given retrospective effect ; secondly, that under the parent Act, an appeal was provided for against a decision of the Deputy Registrar in an election dispute and that is not a mere procedural right but a substantive right which cannot be taken away by a subsequent enactment and that even if there is an express provision to that effect the right of appeal could not be taken away and thirdly, that as under section 61 (3) (b) as amended the decision of the District Munsif is final and the remedy by way of an appeal which was provided by the parent Act, no longer exists that the construction placed on the section by the petitioner cannot be accepted.