TODDAY TAPPETS CO OP SOCIETY Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of consideration of the petition to vacate the interim orders granted by this court our learned brother M N. Rao, J., by his order dated 22-3-1989 has referred the writ petition for consideration by a Bench, as he did not agree with the judgment of another learned single Judge, P.A.Choudary, J., reported in D. Sreenivas Reddy vs. Dist. Collector regarding the construction of Section 19 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter called the Act). At the hearing of the vacate stay petition before us, with the consent of both the counsel, we have heard them in the main writ petition itself.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed by a Toddy lappers Co-operative Society for quashing the order dated 19-10-1988 of the 1st respondent (concerned Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act) directing that the names of the four peisons-respondents 3 to 6-to be entered as members in the records of the Society, failing which action will be taken under Section 34 of the Act viz., for superseding the managing committee of the Society. It is not in dispute that they had made an application for being admitted as members of the Society on 8-7-1988, and even after the expiry of sixty days, no communication in writing was received by the said applicants regarding the fate of their application. They gave a representation to the Registrar in this behalf on 13-10-1988. The Excise Sub-Inspector having jurisdiction had sent a report according to which these persons are residents of the village and are tappers having passed the tapping test. In these circumstances the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) According to Sri. T. Raghunatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is for the managing Committee of the Society to decide whether the applicants are to be admitted as members or not taking into consideration several relevant factors like their eligibility, availability of facilities, that is, number of trees for tapping etc. It is also alleged that these four persons are not residents of the village and are, therefore, not eligible according 10 the bye-laws of the Society read with Section 19 (1) of the Act. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the learned single Judge reported in D. Srinivas Reddy vs. Dist. Collector (supra) and contended that Sec. 19(3) read with its proviso does not provide for a deemed membership after the expiry of sixty days of the application, but only contemplates the communication of a decision taken by the Committee regaiding the application for membership. It is contended that the impugned proceeding by which action under Section 34 is threatened is illegal and amounts to interferece in the functioning of the Society.