BAL RAJ P Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the validity of the action of the 2nd respondent in amending Bye-law 4(a) of the Fishermen Co-operative Society of Kolanur, Odela Mandal of Karimnagar District is called in question.

(2.) Few facts germane to the decision be noted as under. The petitioners are the members of the Fishermen Co-operative Society, Kolanur. The Government of Andhra Pradesh - the first respondent herein - after a serious dialogue and interaction with the office bearers of the Andhra Pradesh Fishermen Co-operative Societies Rights Protection Committee, Hyderabad, found that several full-time employees became members of the Fishermen Co-operative Societies and they are exploiting the real fishermen and thereby depriving the source of livelihood of those real fishermen. Therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed the 2nd respondent to take corrective measures in that regard. At this stage itself, we may point out that there is a controversy between the parties. According to the petitioners, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed the 2nd respondent to take steps to amend the bye-laws under Section 16(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act") whereas, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh only directed the 2nd respondent to look into the matter and take necessary action. Whether the version of the petitioner is correct or the version of the respondents is correct it may not have much bearing to the decision we propose to take. Therefore, we do not propose to resolve this factual controversy. The Government order is not made available to us.

(3.) The action taken by the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent under Section 16(5) of the Act amending Bye-law 4(a) is assailed only on two grounds. The first ground is that the State Government has no power to direct the 2nd respondent to take steps under Section 16(5) of the Act to amend the bye-law. The second ground is that before taking the action under Section 16(5) of the Act, the procedure envisaged under the said sub-section was not gone through. In other words, the amendment was brought about without issuing notice to the society.