KADAVAKOLLU RAMULU Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR CO OPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES A P HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts for the purpose of this writ petition are narrated as follows :

(2.) Elections to the Managing Committee of Mandapakala Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, R.No.H.5622, hereinafter referred to as 'Society' were held on 26/07/1995. 4th Respondent was elected directly as President and 12 others were elected as members of the committee. The petitioners herein were also elected as members of the committee. After the constitution of the committee the 4th respondent issued a notice on 12-2-96 to the petitioners which according to them was received on 19-2-96. In this notice it was alleged that the petitioners have failed to attend four consecutive committee meetings held on 30-9-95,29-11-95,30-11-95 and 20-12-95 and therefore they had acquired disqualification to continue as members of the committee in terms of Section 21B of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, hereinafter referred as 'Act'. By this notice, an explanation was called from the petitioners within 7 days. They were asked to explain as to why they should not be removed from the membership of the committee. The 1st petitioner on 20th of February, 1996 replied the notice stating therein that no notice for the meeting of the committee was sent to him as required under Rule 23B of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, hereinafter referred as 'Rules'. This reply was acknowledged by 4th respondent. Similar reply was sent to the 2nd respondent. who referred the matter on 3rd August 96 to the 3rd respondent for enquiry into the allegations. The 3rd respondent submitted his report to the 2nd respondent stating therein that the notices for the meetings of the committee were sent by Certificate of posting. The 2nd respondent in the meanwhile through his letter dated 17-9-96 requested the 4th respondent to follow the rule position mentioned in the Circular Rc.No. 13404/93-Legal, dated 9/03/1993 of the 1st respondent herein, but the 4th respondent without following the written instructions of the 1st respondent removed the petitioners from the membership of the committee' on the ground that they had not attended the four consecutive meetings.

(3.) On the facts as alleged by the petitioners and reproduced above, the writ petitioners have challenged the order of 2nd respondent with regard to cessation of membership of the petitioners. The following grounds have been agitated in the writ petition and also at the time of hearing : (a) That, the action of the 2nd respondent is in violation of the instructions of the 1st respondent issued on 9-3-1993. (b) That, the impugned action is illegal in view of Section 21B of the Act read with Rule 24B of the Rules. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Judgment in K. Venkateswarlu v. Asst. Director Handlooms and Textiles, 1997 (6) ALD 154 wherein similar controversy has been decided.