THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22592 of 2014 Between: A.Narayan Reddy And Dated 28th October, 2014 …Petitioner Government of Telangana, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Additional Advocate General The Court made the following:
ORDER:
At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.928/2014-B, dated 18.07.2014, of respondent No.3, whereby he has issued notice of no confidence motion to the petitioner, who is the President of the District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Adilabad.
At the hearing, Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the only ground raised by the petitioner is that respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and that the basis for raising such plea was G.O.Ms.No.34, Food and Agriculture (Co-op.IV), dated 18.01.1989, whereunder the powers of Registrars have been delegated to the subordinates. He has pointed out that as per the publication made by an author of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), the powers of the Registrars have been delegated to the Special Cadre Dy.Registrar of Cooperative Societies working as District Cooperative Officers in respect of various provisions which did not include Section 34-A(3) of the Act. He has, however, fairly conceded that the said publication is a mistake and that as evident from the copy of the notification filed by the respondents along with the counter affidavit, all the powers of the Registrars under the Act except those under Sections 4(2), 7(1), 17, 18, 19(2b), third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 etc., have been conferred on the District Cooperative Officers and that those powers include that contained in Section 34-A of the Act.
In view of this fair concession, the only plea raised by the petitioner that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice deserves to be rejected.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.3 is directed to proceed with the no confidence motion from the stage at which it was stopped.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 08.08.2014, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.28331 of 2014 and W.V.M.P.No.2532 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th October, 2014
VGB