HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23852 of 2014 Date : 11-12-2014 Between:
Mr. Shaik Mastan Vali, President, Perecherla Quarry Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd. ..
Petitioner and others And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Co-operation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Mrs. S. Nanda Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr. Venugopalam Vangala Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. M.S. Tirumala Rao 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.
The petitioners are the President, the Vice-President and the Members of Perecherla Quarry Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited (for short “the society”), Perecherla, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District. A serious dispute arose between two groups of the Members of the society leading to the parties approaching this Court. The said dispute culminated in an order being passed by the Supreme Court in C.A.No.3986 of 2012, dated 24-4-2012. The operative portion of the said order reads as under :
“Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to direct the Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative society, Guntur to see that the benefit of the order dated 25-8- 2009 be available only to the society and its valid members. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant society is not functioning and, hence the order dated 25-8-2009 be not given effect to. We express no opinion on that contention. It is for the Registrar of Cooperative Society and Director of Mines to decide as to whether the society is functioning and see that the benefit enures to the society.”
After the passing of the above mentioned order by the Supreme Court, Sk. Abdullah, claiming to be the ex- President of the society, appeared to have made a detailed representation to the Divisional Co-operative Officer on 26- 7-2014. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued separate but prototype notices to the petitioners wherein he has informed them that the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Guntur, instructed him to submit a detailed report on the petition filed by Sk. Abdullah, the ex-President of the Society and therefore the petitioners were asked to attend his office at 11 A.M. on 23-8-2014. to offer remarks on the contents of the petition. These notices have been questioned in the present Writ Petition mainly on the ground that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to issue such notices.
Respondent No.3, who is the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court he has directed the Assistant Registrar to send a report on the complaint received from the ex- President on 26-7-2014.
Ordinarily, a dispute between the Members of a co- operative society needs to be adjudicated under Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"). According to the stand taken by the respondents, respondent No.5 has submitted a detailed representation on various aspects of the society. It is the pleaded case of respondent No.3, as noted above, that in order to implement the order of the Supreme Court he has caused notices issued to the petitioners with a view to elicit information. But, for the said order of the Supreme Court, such notices would not have been sustainable as any enquiry must be traceable to one or the other provisions of the Act. On the facts of the present case, where the purported enquiry is sought to be made in order to give effect to the order of the Supreme Court to ensure that the benefit of license given to the society is made available only to the genuine members of the society, the impugned notices appear to have been issued by respondent No.4 on the directions of respondent No.3, who is admittedly the functional Registrar.
In the light of the above facts, I do not find any prejudice being caused to the petitioners. It is, however, made clear that in the guise of issue of such notices, respondent No.4 shall not exercise any of the powers of the Registrar under Sections 50 to 53 of the Act. On receipt of the report from respondent No.4, respondent No.3 shall act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.29880 of 2014 and WVMP No.2588 of 2014 are disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 11-12-2014 AM