APPANA SURIBABU Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the President of Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society, D. Polavaram and petitioners 2 to 12 are the members of the Managing Committee. Aggrieved by the proceedings in R.C.No. 954/99, dated 3-7-1999 issued by the 3rd respondent, they have approached this Court praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent as illegal. By the impugned order purporting to be under Sec. 34(1) of the A.P. Co-op. Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the 3rd respondent passed orders superseding the Managing Committee and the President of the Society with effect from 3-7-1999 and appointing one P. Nageswara Rao, Circle Supervisor of the Dist. Co-op. Central Bank-Branch, Tuni as a Special Officer for a period of three months.

(2.) The facts in this case are not seriously disputed. That the petitioners were elected on 20-7-1995, that they were in charge of the affairs of the Society for the last 4 1/2 years, that there were no adverse remarks against the committee, that a notice is issued to them on 17-5-1999 giving 3 days' time to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them under Sec. 34 (1) of the Act for allegedly appointing one daily wage worker and paying an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the employees of the Society towards arrears of D, A., etc., and that on 3-7-1999 the impugned order came to bepassed are not disputed. The serious contentious issue is that the petitioners have not chosen to file any reply to the show-cause notice which is denied by the petitioners saying that when only 3 days' time was granted for giving explanation, on 8-6-99 the first petitioner filed an application before the 3rd respondent seeking extension of time for filing proper reply. Be that as it may, the impugned order came to be passed by the third respondent for alleged wilful disobedience of the orders of the authorities while the Society took action in respect of wo others referred to herein above.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr.M. Adinarayana Raju has made three submissions. It is contended by him that the facts in this case do not call for exercise of power under Sec. 34(1) of the Act. Secondly there is no adequate opportunity to the petitioners as required under the said provision before passing the impugned order and therefore the same is avoid (sic. void). Lastly it is submitted that under Sec. 34(6) of the Act, the 3rd respondent is bound to consult the financing bank and that being a condition precedent for exercise of power under Sec. 34(1) of the Act, the impugned order is illegal.