CHOUTUPPAL HANDLOOM WEAVER S CO OP SOCIETY LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF HANDLOOMS AND DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Choutuppal Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Society Limited and its Managing Committee members have filed this writ petition assailing the order of R1 appointing R3 as an Enquiry Officer by proceedings dated 20-12-1993 to enquire under the provisions of Section 51 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short Act), into the working, constitution and finances of the Society. Various allegations of malfeasance of law, the enquiry having been initiated consequent upon dictation by an extraneous person viz., a local M.L.A., procedural irregularities such as inadequacy of notice and opportunity and the like, have been alleged assailing the initiation of inquiry. In the view that this Court is taking it is not necessary to adjudicate upon all the said contentions.

(2.) The strength of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Society (13) and the Managing Committee was elected in January, 1992 for a period of three years, while so a complaint has been received by R!, the Commissioner, regarding the management and affairs of the Society in general and of the conduct of the President in particular. The allegations having been considered serious by orders dated 4-10-1993 a preliminary enquiry having been ordered and conducted, a report was submitted. Thereafter founded on the said preliminary report by orders dated 16-10-1993 R2 was appointed as an Officer to enquire into the affairs of the Society by virtue of the powers available under Sections 51 of the Act. The report of R2 was received on 20-12-1993 by R1, who it is alleged, instead of placing the report before the general body of the petitioner-Society as warranted under Section 51 of the Act has chosen to issue the impugned proceedings authorising R3 to conduct a de novo enquiry into the constitution and working and also financial position of the Society with particular reference to the issue of benami cheques by the President of the Society. Assailing these orders the writ petition is filed contending that successive enquiries are prescribed under Section 51 of the Act. It is also contended alternatively that in any view of the matter the impugned orders are vitiated by non-application of mind inasmuch as no reasons are vouch-safed as to why the earlier enquiry by R2 and the consequent report had to be rejected nor is anything stated as to in what respects the earlier enquiry was found unsatisfactory. It is contended that the mere statement in the impugned orders that the report of the earlier enquiry was not found to be satisfactory would in law amount to an arbitrary and irrational exercise of power particularly in the context of rejecting a report of an enquiry conducted under statutory provisions. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court a decision of a Division Bench in Primary Agricultural Co-op. Society v. B. Malla Reddy, 1996 (2) ALD 803. The Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment enunciated the principle of law in the following terms:

(3.) In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.