Pothana Tata Rao vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others

This Writ Appeal raises a question as to the scope of Section 77 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''.

It appears that an order dated 28-8-1989 was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kovvur, u/s 21-AA and Section 34 of the Act. By that order, the Deputy Registrar held that P. Sathyanarayana was disqualified to continue as President of Bayyanna gudem Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society and also passed an order appointing the Branch Manager, Co-operative Central Bank, Koyyalagudem, as Special Officer in the place of P. Sathyanarayana who was disqualified to continue as President of the Co-operative Society. The Special Officer was also directed to exercise his powers subject to the general control of the Registrar.

P. Sathyanarayana, being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Registrar, has preferred a revision u/s 77 of the Act.

The present Writ Petition has been filed by a member of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Bayyannagudem, for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Government from entertaining the revision petition filed by P. Sathyanarayana.

The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition after holding that the revision petition filed by the disqualified President against the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Registrar was competent u/s 77 of the Act.

The member being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, has filed the present Writ Appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that u/s 77, the revision can only be filed before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies since the Deputy Registrar is subordinate to the Registrar and that it is only against such an order passed in revision by the Registrar that a further revision could be filed before the Government. It is submitted that directly a revision against the order of the Deputy Registrar could not be filed before the Government. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 provides how disqualification of a member is to be inquired into. It reads as under :

"24(3). If any person is or becomes disqualified to be a member of the committee, the Registrar may, on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the committee of the said society or its financing bank, by an order in writing declare that he shall cease to be a member of the committee of the society concerned, from the date of such disqualification. Before passing an order, the Registrar shall give such person an opportunity to state his objections, if any, to the proposed action and if the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given an opportunity to be heard,

The Registrar''s decision shall be final and binding on the society, and it shall not be called in question in any Court".

It may thus be noticed that power is conferred on the Registrar to pass orders as contemplated by Section 21-AA. Section 3 (1) of the Act provides for appointment of a Registrar of Co-operative Societies and as many other persons as the Government think fit for the purposes of the Act. Section 3 reads:

"3. (1) There shall be appointed a Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State and as many other persons as the Government think fit for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Every other person appointed under Sub-section (1) shall exercise, under the general superintendence of the Registrar, such powers of the Registrar under this Act as the Government may, from time to time, confer on him."

At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the definition of "Registrar" given in Section 2 (n) of the Act, which is as under:

"2. (n) ''Registrar'' means Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed u/s 3 (1) and includes any other person on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred."

It may thus be noticed from the definition of "Registrar" that it not only means the Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed under the Act but it also includes any other person on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act are conferred.

In this case, it is the admitted case of the parties that the Deputy Registrar was appointed u/s 3 (1) of the Act. Therefore, for the purposes of Rule 24 (3) of the Rules, the Deputy Registrar could deal with the question of disqualification of a member for the purpose of Section 21-AA read with Section 34 (3) of the Act. It is the common case of the appellant and the respondents that the Deputy Registrar so appointed could deal with the question contemplated by Section 21-AA and, for purposes of dealing with the question of disqualification, the Deputy Registrar was functioning as a Registrar rather exercising the powers of the Registrar appointed u/s 3(1).

Learned Counsel for the appellant referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others Vs. Secretary (Food and Agriculture) Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, . It may be noted that in that case, orders were passed by the Deputy Registrar in exercise of the powers of the Registrar u/s 16 (5) of the Act calling upon the appellant-Society to amend its bye-laws so as to restrict its area of operation only to taluk headquarters. Against this order of the Deputy Registrar, the appellant-Society went up in revision before the Registrar. The Registrar entertained the revision and allowed by his order dated 10-12-1975. By that order, the Registrar not only set aside the notice of the Deputy Registrar but also directed the District Co-operative authorities to recommend the case of the appellant-Society for grant of licences for all the shops situated within the taluk for the excise year 1975-76. The recommendation could not be implemented since by that time the village societies had already been granted licences in respect of shops situated in the respective villages. The licence of the appellant Society was confined only to the area in the taluk headquarters. In view of the said recommendation, the village societies apprehended trouble in the excise year 1976-77 and filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the order of the Registrar dated 10-12-1975. The village societies also simultaneously approached the Government by way of revision u/s 77 of the Act against the order of the Registrar dated 10-12-1975. On 6-10-1976, the Government suspended the operation of the order of the Registrar dated 10-12-1975 and further directed the Collector (Co-operation), Visakhapatnam, to recommend the case of the village societies to the Excise Superintendent for the issue of licences for the excise year 1976-77. The appellant-Society thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the State Government dated 6-10-1976. The High Court issued rule nisi but declined to stay the impugned order. However, the writ petition was subsequently dismissed by the High Court as infructuous.

On the very day, i.e., 6th October, 1976, when the village societies filed revision petitions before the Government, the appellant-Society filed an application to the Government disputing the claim of the village societies. The Government, however, without issuing any notice to the appellant-Society, passed final orders dated 4-12-1976 allowing the two revision petitions filed by the village societies and set aside the order of the Registrar dated 10-12-1976.

Thereafter, the appellant-Society felt aggrieved by the order of the Government and filed two writ petitions. The High Court took the view that the revision by the Village societies to the Registrar was competent and also that a further revision to the Government was also competent u/s 77 of the Act.

The only question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the order of the Government in revision passed u/s 77 of the Act was invalid for non-compliance with Section 77(2) which provides that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under Sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. It was submitted before the Supreme Court that the Government did not afford any opportunity to the appellant-Society for making any representation before it. The High Court rejected this plea on the ground that from a perusal of the voluntary applications filed by the appellant-Society, it was clear that the appellant-Society had anyhow met with the points urged by the respondents in their representation before the Government.

One of the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents before the Supreme Court was that the revision petition filed by the appellant-society against the order of the Deputy Registrar before the Registrar was incompetent. The Supreme Court, on an interpretation of the first part of Section 77, took the view that on a combined reading of Section 3(1) and Section 2 (n), the Deputy Registrar was an officer subordinate to the Registrar and, therefore, the Registrar was competent to entertain the revision petition against the order of the Deputy Registrar.

The only question raised before us is whether an order passed by the Deputy Registrar, who is a Registrar, in view of Section 2 (n) of the Act, is amenable to revision before the Government directly u/s 77 of the Act. Section 77 reads as follows:

"77. (1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on application made to him, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him and the Government may of their own motion or on application made to them, call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by Sub-section (1) of Section 76 to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made there in; and if, in any case, it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly:

XX XX XX XX XX

It may thus be noticed that Section 77(1) is in two pArts. The first part confers power of revision on the Registrar against any order passed by any Officer subordinate to him, while the second part confers power only on the Government to pass any order modifying, annulling, reversing or remitting for consideration, any order passed by the Registrar.

In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court took the view that, so far as the first part is concerned, even though the order is passed by the Deputy Registrar and the Deputy Registrar is a Registrar within the meaning of Section 2 (n) of the Act, but since he is subordinate to the Registrar, the Registrar could entertain the revision petition. This view was taken particularly in view of the wording of Section 3 of the Act which says that the Registrar shall have general superintendence over the exercise of powers by the other persons appointed u/s 3 (1).

The question which is raised before us relates to the second part of Section 77. We have already reproduced Section 2 (n). It is clear from the definition of "Registrar" that even a Deputy Registrar appointed u/s 3 (1) is a Registrar for the purposes of the Act. Once the Deputy Registrar is a Registrar within the meaning of Section 2(n), the Government has every right to entertain a revision petition directly from the order of such Deputy Registrar exercising the functions of the Registrar for the purpose of Rule 24 (3) while deciding a matter arising u/s 21-AA. Once the Deputy Registrar is exercising the functions of a Registrar under the aforesaid provision, he is also a Registrar for the purposes of the second part of Section 77. We are thus in agreement with the learned single Judge that no writ of prohibition could be issued since the 4th respondent was in a position to approach the Government u/s 77 in revision against the order of the Deputy Registrar while passing orders u/s 21-AA read with Section 34 of the Act. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Advocate''s Fee Rs. 150/-.