ANDE BASAVAIAH Vs. THE DIVISIONAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Tungalavaripalem Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited. Proceedings under Section 15-A as introduced by Act 6 of 1977 were taken and two other Societies by name Yallalanka Multipurpose Co-operative Society and Gudivekavaripalem Multipurpose Co-operative Society were merged into the aforesaid Tungalavaripalem Society. The said order of merger is published in the Gazette dated 14-6-1977. By an order dated 12-8-1977, the 1st respondent, i.e., the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Machilipatnam (who exercises the powers of the Registrar under Section 15-A of the Act) appointed a committee of seven persons to manage the affairs of the said Society, viz. ,the Society after the merger of two other Societies into it. The said appointment is stated to be valid up to 31-12-1977 or till the elections are held, whichever is later. The said appointment has been made under Section 15-A (3) (vi). The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of the said members and Sri Bheema Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following three contentions:

(2.) Mr. Parabrahma Sastry has filed Vakalat on behalf of respondents 2,4,6,7 and 8. According to him, respondent No. 6 is dead but that he is very much alive and that he has also participated in two meetings of the Committee held after their appointment. A counter-affidavit sworn to by the 2nd respondent is filed denying the several allegations made by the writ petitioner. Though the learned Government Pleader has filed a formal counter, he has stated, on the basis of the instructions received by him, that the 6th respondent is dead but that he is alive. It is stated that the writ petitioner is referring to a different Munipalli Kotaiah. The Munipalli Kotaiah, who has now been appointed as a member of the Committee, is having G.L. No. 98 and therefore, he is the same person who is referred to by the writ petitioner as having died on 29-8-1975.

(3.) So far as the second contention is concerned, the 2nd respondent has stated in his counter-affidavit that respondents 2, 7 and 8 are members of Gudivehavaripalem M.P.C.S. and that their appointment as members of the Committee unobjectionable. With respect to the third contention of the petitioner, it is stated that the very power of appointment carries with it the necessary and implied power to designate one of the members as a Chairman and another as Vice-Chairman so that the Committee may be able to function properly and effectively.