ANANTAPUR DISTRICT GOVT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD Vs. DIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER ANANTAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of the show cause raxice bearing Rc.No.2249/96-B dated 23-9-1997 issued by the first respondent under Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, for short 'the Act', to the petitioner-society is assailed in this writ petition. The first respondent is holding substantive post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

(2.) The undisputed facts may be stated briefly, at the outset, as under: "Government Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Anantapur" was registered with Registration No. 1764 under the provisions of the Act on 26-4-1994 by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies/ Divisional Co-operative Officer, Anantapur, and it was not registered as' 'Anantapur District Government Employees Co-operative Housing Society" as shown in the cause title. The petitioner-society was registered as a primary society and the petitioner-society adopted the model bye-laws prescribed for the primary societies. Elections to the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society were also held treating the petitioner-society as a primary society in terms of Rules 22(1), 22(5) and 22(9) of Andhra Pradcsh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, for short 'the Rules'. In other words, the petitioner-society although was treated as a primary society.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may be stated now briefly as under: Four elected Directors of the petitioner-society submitted a representation to the first respondent on 8-9-1997 alleging that Sri. P. Sreedhar, President of the Society has not conducted any Board meeting since the date of election but they were given to understand that the President has reported to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Anantapur that he conducted the meeting of the Board of Directors on 24-8-1997 with an agenda to convene the General Body meeting on 28-9-1997, but they did not receive any meeting notice and therefore they did not attend the Board meeting convened on 24-8-1997, and they suspected that there was forgery of the signatures of the Directors and requesting the first respondent to call for the minutes book for verification of signatures of the Directors. On this representation, the President of the Society was requested to produce the minutes book and the minutes notice service record on 18-9-1997 at 11.00 a.m. for verification by the first respondent. The President of the Society did not comply with the direction issued by the first respondent, and he did not produce the records on 18-9-1997 but sent a letter dated 18-9-1997 stating that the records are required for investigation by the police on a complaint filed by him against the ex-President of the Society. However, the President sent xerox copies of all the resolutions recorded in the minutes book, but he did not produce any record relating to service of notice on the Directors. The first respondent after perusing the xerox copies of the resolutions recorded in the minutes book and satisfying himself that the Committee of Management disobeyed the lawful orders issued by him, thought it fit to initiate action under Section 34 (1) of the Act to supersede the Committee of Management of the petitioner-society. Therefore, the first respondent issued the impugned notice contemplated under Section 34(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner-society to show cause as to why the Committee of Management should not be superseded for the reasons set out in the impugned notice.