THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22102 of 2014 Dated: 20.10.2014 Between:
Gujjula Madhava Reddy and another .. Petitioners and The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad and others.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. P. Kesava Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Co-operation (T.S.) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
.. Respondents This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.652/2014-C dated 24.07.2014 of respondent No.2, whereby she has superseded the Managing Committee of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short ‘the P.A.C.S.’) of Narsampet, Warangal District, and appointed a person-in-charge in its place.
Though time for filing counter-affidavit was taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Co-operation on many occasions, no counter-affidavit is filed.
I have heard Mr. P. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Co-operation.
Petitioner No.1 is the President and petitioner No.2 is the Vice-President of the above-mentioned P.A.C.S. Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned order, a perusal of which would show that seven Directors of the P.A.C.S. have submitted their resignation letters on 24.07.2014 which were accepted on the same day and that in view of lack of quorum with the remaining six Directors, the Managing Committee of the society is superseded and a person-in-charge is appointed.
At the hearing, Mr. P. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that as per Rule 23-AAA of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’), the resignation of a member of a Managing Committee has to be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the society by sending it through registered post or by tendering the same in person and it will come into effect only from the date it is accepted by the Managing Committee and that as evident from the impugned proceedings, the alleged resignations of seven Directors were sent to respondent No.2 and the said respondent has accepted the said resignations. The learned counsel has invited this Court’s attention to proceedings in Rc.No.795/2012-C dated 02.07.2014 issued by the selfsame respondent No.2 to one of the Directors by name Palelly Ramachandraiah, wherein she has informed that as per Rule 23-AAA (3) of the Rules, he shall submit his resignation letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the P.A.C.S. and that the Managing Committee has to take a decision after the same is discussed in its meeting.
Rule 23-AAA (3) of the Rules reads as under:-
“Notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, any member or members of the committee may resign their seats by sending a letter of resignation by Registered Post or by tendering it in person to the Chief Executive Officer/President of the society and such resignation shall take effect from the date it is accepted by the Managing Committee.”
From the above-quoted Rule, it is evident that a member who intends to resign has to send his resignation letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the society concerned and it will take effect from the date it is accepted by the Managing Committee. Respondent No.2 is well aware of this legal position, which is evident from the above-mentioned proceedings in Rc.No.795/2012-C dated 02.07.2014, wherein she has reminded one Palelly Ramachandraiah, Director of the P.A.C.S., about the rule position and returned his resignation letter. This Court only wonders at the short memory of respondent No.2 who has acted contrary to her stand within a few days of her returning the resignation letter of the said Ramachandraiah and superceded the Managing Committee by straight away accepting the alleged resignation letters of the seven Directors. This action of respondent No.2, I have no doubt in my mind, has no bona fides. Her conduct in accepting resignations in brazen violation of the statutory provision can without doubt be perceived as mala fide. In the light of the unequivocal legal position referred to above and the undisputed fact that respondent No.2 has accepted the purported resignations of the seven Directors without any authority, the impugned order is set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.2 is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable from her personal funds to the petitioners.
As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27718 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th October, 2014 IBL