Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M.Jaipal Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Prl. ... on 24 March, 2015
Author: R.Kantha Rao
Bench: R.Kantha Rao
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
Writ Petition No.6492 of 2015
24-3-2015
M.Jaipal Reddy Petitioner
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Cooperative Dept.,
Secretariat, Hyderabad; and 15 others Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy
Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: Government Pleader
for Cooperation
Counsel for Respondent No.7: Sri P.Giri Krishna
Counsel for Respondents 3 to 6 & 8 to 16: None appeared
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
Writ Petition No.6492 of 2015
Date: 24-3-2015
Order:
Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for
Cooperation appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, and
Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the
7th respondent.
2. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus seeking
direction to declare the notice dated 04-3-2015 issued by
the 2nd respondent under Section 34(A)(3) of the Andhra
Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (the APCS Act, for
short) enabling the members of the District Cooperative
Central Bank Limited (DCCB), Medak at Sangareddy in
respect of moving Motion of no-confidence dated 26-3-2015
at 11.00 a.m. against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and
against the principles of natural justice and to set aside the
same.
3. The brief facts necessary for considering the present
writ petition may be stated as follows:
(a) The petitioner is the President of the DCCB Ltd.,
Medak at Sangareddy. He was elected as the President of
DCCB in August, 2009 and has been discharging functions
as such till date. It is submitted by the petitioner that the
2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 25-02-2015 to him
seeking information about the defaulting members of the
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACSs) and
DCCB. In response to the letter, the petitioner submitted
a statement showing the loan over dues as on 28-02-2015
vide his letter dated 04-3-2015. According to the petitioner,
during the period between 25-02-2015 and 04-3-2015, the
unofficial respondents who are the defaulters were
pressurising him not to give the details of loan over dues
but the petitioner was insisting upon them to clear the
outstanding loan amounts to the DCCB and also informed
them that in the event of failure, he would initiate
proceedings under the APCS Act for disqualification of the
defaulting members.
(b) Under the above circumstances, it is the version of
the petitioner that 9 Directors out of 13, who colluded with
the 3rd respondent, got issued the impugned notice by the
2nd respondent whereupon the 2nd respondent issued the
impugned notice calling for Motion of no-confidence on
26-3-2015 against the petitioner.
(c) It is further submitted that respondent No.15,
who joined as a Director of DCCB, purporting to be the
member of Sheep Breading Cooperative Society (SBCS),
Pullur, whose term expired prior to the elections of DCCB
but somehow he managed by misrepresenting the fact that
he is the President of SBCS, Pullur and accordingly got
inducted as a Director in collusion with the officials.
The petitioner brought it to the notice of the 2nd respondent
orally on number of occasions and the issue relating to the
5th respondent also is one of the reasons for issuing the
impugned notice.
(d) It is further submitted that the impugned notice
issued by the 2nd respondent is politically motivated and
was issued at the instance of the defaulters, who are
arrayed as respondents 3 and 5 to 11. The unofficial
respondents who are defaulters are not entitled to move any
Motion of no-confidence against the petitioner as they are
not eligible to participate and vote at the proposed meeting
of Motion of no-confidence. The version of the petitioner is
that the impugned notice of meeting of Motion of
no-confidence is a counter-blast to the action proposed by
him for disqualification of the members of the DCCB.
He submits that if the respondents who are defaulters are
not taken into consideration, the impugned notice shall fail
for want of quorum and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
(e) Under the aforementioned circumstances, it is said
that the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent,
it is submitted that one Ch.Devender Reddy and 13 others,
who are arrayed as respondents 3 to 16, expressed their
lack of confidence against the petitioner and gave a notice
declaring their intention to move Motion of no-confidence
against the petitioner. The Motion of no-confidence was
signed by 14 Directors of DCCB, Medak at Sangareddy.
(a) It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent
cannot go into the motive behind moving Motion of
no-confidence against the President and he has to only see
as to whether the Motion of no-confidence is in accordance
with the provisions of Section 34-A of the APCS Act and
Rule 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative
Societies Rules, 1964 (the APCS Rules, for short).
The 2nd respondent served notices on all members in person
as well as by registered post along with the copy of the
motion moved by the respondents 3 to 16. The notice was
issued on 04-3-2015 and was served on all members
including the petitioner.
(b) Nextly, it is submitted that the petitioner can raise
the issue setting forth his version on 26-3-2015 at the
meeting as provided under sub-section (7) of Section 34-A of
the APCS Act. It is further submitted that out of 20 existing
members of the Managing Committee of the DCCB,
14 members have given a written notice of Motion of
no-confidence against the President of the DCCB.
The 2nd respondent in discharge of his duties, issued letter
dated 25-02-2015 to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of
the DCCB calling for the list of all the defaulters of all the
PACSs and he was requested to give the above details
periodically. According to the respondents, the Motion of
no-confidence has nothing to do with the issue of
defaulters. It is the version of the respondents that even
before the CEO of DCCB could respond to the letter dated
25-02-2015 sent by the 2nd respondent, the notice of Motion
of no-confidence was sought to be moved by the
respondents 3 to 16 on 02-3-2015 and therefore, the
allegation that the letter of the 2nd respondent dated
25-02-2015 is the cause for issuance of the notice for
Motion of no-confidence is absolutely false and invented.
(c) Contending as above, the respondents sought to
dismiss the writ petition.
5. The issue to be determined in the present writ
petition is whether there are any valid grounds to set aside
the impugned notice whereunder the 2nd respondent
proposed to hold Motion of no-confidence on 26-3-2015 ?
6. At the hearing of the writ petition, the learned
Government Pleader for Cooperation submitted a statement
relating to the dues of members of the Managing Committee
as on 19-3-2015 which shows that the unofficial
respondents are not defaulters as on 19-3-2015.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however,
disputes the genuineness of the said statement. But, this
Court is not supposed to make a roving enquiry into the
said statement in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the unofficial
respondents are defaulters as on the crucial date, whereas
the contention of the respondents is that they are not
defaulters on the crucial date. In any event, the admitted
fact is that so far, none of them have been disqualified as on
today under the provisions of the APCS Act. Therefore,
unless they are disqualified as members in accordance with
the provisions of the APCS Act, it is not open for the
petitioner to contend that they are not eligible to participate
and vote at the meeting of Motion of no-confidence.
7. This Court, unless there is a manifest irregularity or
illegality as to the procedure in holding the meeting of the
proposed Motion of no-confidence, is not supposed to make
an enquiry into the motive behind the moving of Motion of
no-confidence against the petitioner. When majority of the
members expressed want of confidence in the petitioner and
issued a notice to the 2nd respondent to fix a date for
conducting a meeting, it is obligatory on the part of the
2nd respondent to hold a meeting of Motion of no-confidence
as contemplated under Section 34-A of the APCS Act.
Relying upon the mere version of the petitioner relating to
motive behind the Motion of no-confidence, this Court is not
supposed to set aside the impugned notice unless there is
manifest irregularity or illegality. The petitioner is not able
to show that the Motion of no-confidence, which is
proposed, is contrary to the provisions of the APCS Act or
the APCS Rules. In the absence thereof, this Court is not
supposed to accede to the request of the petitioner to set
aside the impugned notice. When the Motion of
no-confidence is proposed to be moved and if it is in
accordance with the provisions of the APCS Act and APCS
Rules, this Court is not expected to set aside the impugned
notice by taking into consideration some extraneous
material. Further, the petitioner has liberty to challenge the
result of Motion of no-confidence by way of an appeal under
Section 76 of the APCS Act.
8. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no case
is made out by the petitioner to set aside the impugned
notice. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________
R.KANTHA RAO, J.
24th March, 2015.