THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.17702 of 2014 Between:
Dated 22nd December, 2014 KUNURU MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED …Petitioner And The Government of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri U.Shanthi Bushan Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Cooperation (TS) Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7: Sri M.Venkat Divakar Counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 11: Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing No.1346/2014-D, dated 25.06.2014, of respondent No.3, whereby he has directed respondent No.4 to convene the General Body Meeting of the petitioner-Society and constitute a Three-Member ad hoc Committee under Section 23(3) of the A.P.Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’).
The deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition who was the outgoing President of the petitioner-Society averred that he was elected as a Managing Committee Member of the Society on 01.07.2009 for a period of five years (till 30.06.2014), that along with him one Sri Bushigampala Ashok was also elected as a Managing Committee Member, that in June, 2011 he was elected as the President of the Society and thereafter, as a Director of the Nalgonda Ranga Reddy Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited and that he has been continuing as such at present.
The deponent has further averred that for the purpose of electing two retiring Managing Committee Members of the Society, meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 15.05.2014 at the office of the Society with the specific agenda to discuss income and expenditure, verification of voters list, election of two Directors, and to decide the date of General Body Meeting for election, appointment of an Election Officer for the said purpose and any other item with the permission of the chair. That accordingly, the meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 19.05.2014, wherein the General Body resolved to conduct the General Body Meeting on 12.06.2014 for the purpose of election of Managing Committee Members and appointment of Sri Kallem Thirupathi as Election Officer.
The deponent has also averred that as per the said resolution, the General Body Meeting was held on 12.06.2014, wherein he and one Sri Bushigampala Ashok were elected as the Managing Committee Members of the Society unanimously. That the Election Officer has issued a certificate on 12.06.2014 itself and the same was intimated on 13.06.2014 along with the copies of all the documents relating to the election which was acknowledged by respondent No.3 on the same day. He has accordingly pleaded that from 12.06.2014, he has been continuing as the President of the Society.
While so, on the complaints received from some of the members of the Society, respondent No.3 has directed respondent No.4 to hold an enquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, respondent No.4 has submitted her report, dated 20.06.2014, wherein she has stated that as per her enquiry, the petitioner has not conducted elections for the two vacant posts of Director. Considering the said report, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned proceedings.
On 27.06.2014, this Court has granted interim order of status quo till 30.06.2014. The said order was extended till 04.07.2014 by order, dated 30.06.2014. The interim order continued to be extended till 11.09.2014. On 11.09.2014, this Court adjourned the case while recording the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also observing that no interim order is subsisting.
At the hearing, Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 11, submitted that as the interim order of status q u o was not extended beyond 11.09.2014, in pursuance of the impugned order, a Three-Member ad hoc Committee was constituted in the General Body Meeting held on 14.11.2014 and that the said Committee has held elections on 19.12.2014.
Sri U.Shanthi Bushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, is unable to deny this fact. He has, however, submitted that as the election has been held in pursuance of the impugned proceedings, if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, the same will be automatically rendered invalid.
From the facts noted above, it is evident that the petitioner has assailed the order passed by respondent No.3 directing appointment of ad hoc Committee for holding elections for filling up two vacancies of Director on the ground that on 12.06.2014, the said two vacancies were filled up by holding election. The petitioner has also specifically averred that the said fact was intimated to respondent No.3 on 13.06.2014, while enclosing copies of the documents, such as Notices, dated 15.05.2014, 05.06.2014, Nomination Forms, Minutes of the Meeting, dated 19.05.2014, 12.06.2014 etc. However, no evidence has been placed by the petitioner in support of this plea. Thus, the legality or otherwise of the impugned proceedings solely hinges upon t h e factum of holding General Body Meeting and conducting of elections in the said General Body Meeting by the petitioner on 12.06.2014.
This being a disputed question of fact and in the absence of any conclusive evidence placed by the petitioner, this Court cannot decide such a dispute while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the impugned order appears to have worked itself out with the constitution of ad hoc Committee and holding of elections on 19.12.2014, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to raise an election dispute under Section 37(2) of the Act.
Leaving the petitioner with such liberty, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.22170 and 44022 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd December, 2014
VGB