Muddumala Meshak and Another vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This writ petition challenges the order of supersession of the Committee passed by the first respondent in exercise of his powers u/s 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

In exercise of powers under Rule 24(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, in a Committee of 13 members elected during January, 1992, eight members were disqualified on account of default in payment of dues. The same was challenged in W.P. No. 17152 of 1993. Initially, there was a stay but on contest the same was vacated. As such, the disqualification came into force. As the Committee could not function because of lack of quorum, the first respondent has invoked powers u/s 34(1) of the Act and passed orders of supersession. Later W.P. No. 17151 of 1993 has been dismissed as withdrawn. The result is that disqualification of eight members had become final. If that be so, admittedly, there is no quorum and the Committee cannot function. Such a Committee is no Committee in the eye of law as it cannot function at all.

Mr. E. Manohar, appearing for the petitioners contends that inasmuch as the Committee is not validly existing and as it cannot transact any business, Section 34(1) of the Act is not applicable. Mr. Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that as the Committee is not functioning properly Section 34(1) of the Act is applicable. This contention is supported by Mr. Durga Reddy, appearing for the Government. Support is taken for this contention from the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Pamarthy Veeraswamy Vs. The Collector (Co-operation), Krishna District at Chilakalpudi and Others, . But in the said judgment what was dealt with was only in provisions contained u/s 32(7)(a) and Section 34 of the Act. In that case, when the Directors fell short of the majority because of resignations straightaway order was passed u/s 32(7)(a) of the Act. In that context, the Division Bench dealt with the matter holding that Section 32(7)(a) of the Act has got no application and it is only Section 34 of the Act which is applicable. The attention of the Division Bench was not drawn to other relevant provisions of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that Section 32(7)(a) of the Act is only ancillary provision to meet the exigencies when there is no Committee and when the elections cannot be conducted immediately. But, the affairs of the Society have to be managed. Had Sub-section (6) of Section 32 of the Act been drawn to the notice of the learned Judges in the above case, it would have been otherwise. As such, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. Here is a case where eight members are disqualified and the consequence is that the Committee cannot function. Section 34(1) of the Act is applicable only when the Committee is not functioning properly or wilfully disobeys or fails to comply wilfully with any lawful order or direction issued by the Registrar under the Act. The second limb of the requirement under wilfully disobidence of the orders is not applicable here because such a situation did not arise. Dealing with the argument of Mr. Chandrasekhara Rao that the Committee is not functioning properly, he says it only means that there is no Committee with a proper quorum to discharge its functions. I am afraid I cannot countenance tot his contention for the reason that the words employed under the statement ''the Committee is not functioning properly'' are clear and unambiguous. The said words imply and presuppose the existence of a valid Committee but that Committee while discharging its functions has misconducted itself. But in this case, there is no Committee at all so that it can even convene a meeting and transact the business. As such, Section 34 of the Act is not having any application.

Sub-section (6) of Section 32 of the Act reads as follows:

"Not with standing anything in this Chapter, if at any time the Government are satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for them to call a general meeting for election of members of the committee, to be held in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Government or any person authorised by them in this behalf shall have power to call such meeting and to determine the place, time and the period of notice of such meeting."

This is the only provision which is applicable when the Committee fell short of quorum because of disqualification of the majority members and after the said disqualification had become final, as a necessary corollary, elections have got to be conducted and there is no exception to it.

In the circumstances, the only provision which is applicable is Sub-section (6) of Section 32 of the Act and not Section 34 of the Act. In view of the same, I set aside the order passed by the first respondent on 29-1-1994. The Government shall conduct elections to the Managing Committee by calling upon a general meeting either by itself or by authorising some person on its behalf and elections to the Committee shall be conducted within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

If I do not make any order with regard to the management of the Society, there will be vacuum and the interests of the Society in particular and the cooperative movement in general will suffer. The Society cannot be left without any management. A Special Officer is already appointed u/s 34 of the Act. The said Special Officer is an officer of the Co-operative Department. As such, he is eligible to be appointed as a person in charge. If that be so, the said Special Officer shall be considered as an Officer u/s 32(7)(a) of the Act and he shall manage the affairs of the Co-operative Society until appropriate action is taken by the Government or its officials.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.