Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M.Ravinder Reddy And Another vs The Government Of Telangana, Rep.By Its ... on 20 November, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 (NOC) 211 (HYD.)
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.34320 of 2014
20-11-2014
M.Ravinder Reddy and anotherPetitioners
The Government of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture &
Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents
^Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.Srinivasa Rao
!Counsel for the respondents: Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader (TS)
<Gist:
>Head note:
? Cases referred:
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.34320 of 2014
Dated 20th November, 2014
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice bearing No.424/2014-C, dated 06.11.2014, of respondent No.3.
I have heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (TS).
Petitioner No.1 is the President and petitioner No.2 is the Vice- President of Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS), Ramannapet, Nalgonda District. No confidence motion was moved against them. Respondent No.3 has convened a meeting for 22.09.2014 in the office of PACS, Ramannapet. During the meeting, no confidence motion could not be carried out. However, respondent N.3 has issued the impugned proceedings for convening a fresh meeting to be held on 24.11.2014 at 11.00 am for discussing no confidence motion. Feeling aggrieved by this proceeding, the petitioners filed this writ petition.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that as two thirds of the members of the Managing Committee of the PACS which constituted quorum were not present on 22.09.2014, respondent No.3 has postponed the meeting and that therefore no fresh meeting can be convened for discussing the no confidence motion at least for one year in view of sub-section (12) of Section 34-A of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the Act). In support of their plea that the meeting could not be held due to lack of quorum, the petitioners have filed a copy of the report, dated 22.09.2014, made by respondent No.3 to the Station House Officer, Ramannapet Police Station, Nalgonda District.
Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, while opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to justify the impugned notice.
Sub-sections (11) and (12) of Section 34-A of the Act read as under:
34-A. Motion of no confidence in the President and Vice-President of the committee:-
xxxx (11) If the motion is carried with the support of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Committee, the Registrar shall by order remove the President or, as the case may be, the Vice-President and the resulting vacancy shall be filled in the manner prescribed.
(12) If the motion is not carried by such a majority as aforesaid or if the meeting could not be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same President or, as the case may be, the Vice-President shall be made until, after the expiration of the one year from the date of the meeting.
From the above re-produced statutory provisions, it is evident that no confidence motion shall be carried with not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Committee and if the motion is not carried by such majority or if the meeting could not be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same President or, as the case may be, the Vice-President shall be made until, after the expiration of one year from the date of the meeting.
In her report, dated 22.09.2014, made to the Station House Officer, Ramannapet, respondent No.3 inter alia stated as under:
Accordingly I, the undersigned have attended to the PACS Ramannapeta (Village & Mandal), Nalgonda district on 22nd September, 2014 to conduct a special Managing Committee on No confidence motion against the president and Vide-President. Only (8) Directors have attended the special meeting, the attended members have given their opinion about the motion of no confidence and the same were recorded in the Minutes Register. Due to lack of Quorum i.e., 2/3rd majority, the no confidence motion made against the president and Vice-President could not be carried-out as only (8) Directors were present at the said meeting out of (13) Directors.
As per section 34-A(11) of APCS Act 1964, the motion of no confidence shall be carried with the support of not less than 2/3rd of total members of managing committee irrespective of vacancies existing in the office of the member at the time of meeting.
While concluding the process of the meeting some of the members have interrupted and threatened me and my supporting staff and damaged/destroyed the relevant records i.e., minutes register and office file etc., and not allowed us to move-out from the premises.
The learned Special Government Pleader, while not disputing the contents of the said report, however, submitted that the meeting could not be held as some members have interrupted and threatened respondent No.3 and her subordinate staff, that they have also damaged and destroyed relevant records and that therefore respondent No.3 is entitled to issue a fresh notice.
I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission. The report of respondent No.3 is in two parts. In the first part, it is unequivocally mentioned by her that only eight Directors have attended the meeting and that due to lack of quorum, no confidence motion against the petitioners could not be carried out. The second part of the report deals with the vandalism allegedly indulged in by some of the members and in connection with the said incident, respondent No.3 has requested the Station House Officer to investigate and initiate necessary action.
From this report, it is clear beyond any cavil of doubt that the meeting could not be held due to lack of quorum and not because of violence allegedly indulged in by some of the members. As per the legislative mandate contained in sub-section (12) of Section 34- A of the Act, if the meeting could not be held for want of quorum, no fresh meeting for discussing the no confidence motion can be issued till the expiry of one year from the date of the meeting. I am therefore of the opinion that the impugned proceeding which was issued for discussing the same no confidence motion much before the expiry of one year cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42920 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th November, 2014