B SREENIVASULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The affairs of Sri Venkateswara Co-operative House Building Society appear to have been in bad shape. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by his order dated November 22, 1985, appointed one Krishnaswamy, the third respondent in this writ petition, to inquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of that society. The charge in this writ petition is that the said enquiry officer did not complete the enquiry in accordance with section 51, which was inserted by Act 21 of 1985, directs that the said enquiry shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of commencement of the enquiry and the report of enquiry along with the findings of the Registrar thereon shall be placed before the next general body meeting of the society: "Provided that the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period aforesaid for a further period not exceeding two months." The unamended section does not prescribe any time limit for the completion of the enquiry. The fixing of the time-limit was left by the old Act to the Rules. Rules 47 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, says that an enquiry commenced by any person authorised by the Registrar shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of the order authorising the enquiry officer to commence the enquiry. The rule also says that if the enquiry is not completed as specified in sub-rule (2) or if the person holding the inquiry submits a report stating the reasons for not completing the enquiry within the said time, the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant an extension of time for the purpose of completion of the enquiry within a further period not exceeding ninety days. Basing upon these provisions of law, the petitioners say that the enquiry officer was appointed in this case on November 23, 1986, and that he had not completed his enquiry within the period of four months nor was there any extension of his office during those four months for another period by the Registrar. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the enquiry officer shall not only complete the enquiry but should also submit his report to the Registrar within the said period and that he has failed to submit his report within the period stipulated which sometimes he says is four months according to section 51 and at other times six months according to rule 47. On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter is that the enquiry officer had commenced his enquiry by issuing summons on December 10, 1985, and had completed the enquiry within the stipulated period during his extended period which was up to June 9, 1986. It appears to me from the counter-affidavit that these conflicting contentions of the petitioners and the respondents are based on a wrong assumption of the meaning of section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. In my opinion, section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act should be read only as directory and not as mandatory. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation - of which State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, is a good example, to read statutory provisions mandatory in form as directory. It reads thus (at page 765):

(2.) The construction which is sought to be placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on section 51 will utterly defeat the object of the enquiry. The time spent on the enquiry, the material gathered in the process would all be of no avail merely because the enquiry could not be completed within the time mentioned by that section. I do not see any need to attach sanctity to the time-table. I, therefore, hold that section 51 is merely directory and the report of the enquiry officer in this case can be placed before the general body, for its consideration. Sri V.T.M. Prasad has also placed strong reliance on rule 47 of the Act. But what I have said about section 51 will apply even with greater force to this rule 47. In fact, a reading of the rule shows that it runs at several places contrary to section 51 of the Act. While section 51 gives time of four months to complete the enquiry, rule 47 gives time up to six months as seen in the present case. While the period of extension contemplated by section 51 is two months, the rule empowers the Registrar to extend the period up to ninety days. I cannot interpret the meaning of section 51 on the basis of such an ill-drafted rule. I, therefore, do not find anything illegal in the report submitted by the enquiry officer even on the assumption that the report had been submitted after the period of time mentioned in section 51. I uphold the right of the Registrar to appoint an enquiry officer to help the general body. Any one can look into the complex affairs of his home. It is not reasonable to say that the general body has not got those powers to look into the report submitted by the enquiry officer. This writ petition has no merits. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250.