Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V. Jogiraju Raja, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 November, 2020
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
[ 2696 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO IA No. 1 OF 2020 IN PR a WP NO: 15604 OF 2020 Sate Between: V. Jogiraju @ Raja, S/o. Tammarao, aged 42 years, Occ: Ex- Chairman, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Lampakalova, Thota Veedhi, Prathipadu Mandal, ZP High School, Prathipadu, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner (Petitioner in WP 15604 OF 2020 on the file of High Court) AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Agricultural and Cooperation (Coop.IV) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District rep by its Principal Secretary 2. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Skylar Towers, Near D.no.2-16-83, 11th line, Syamala Nagar, Guntur. 3. The Special Category Deputy Registrar/ District Cooperative Officer, East Godavari District at Kakinada. Divisional Registrar, Coop. Society, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. The Assistant Registrar -Il, Sub Division Prathipadu, East Godavari District. Lampakalova Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Lampakalova, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District Rep by its Chief Executive Officer. 7. The District Collector, East Godavari District. Ook ...Respondents (Respondents in-do-) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend proceedings in RC.No.2791/2019-A dated 26.6.2020 passed by the 3 respondent pending disposal of WP No.15604 of 2020, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments SRI O.MANOHAR REDDY, Advocate for SRI V V SATISH Advocate for the Petitioner and of GP FOR COOPERATION for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7, and SRI V.VENU GOPAL for Respondent No.6, the Court made the following ORDER:
"The petitioner is a former president of the 6 respondent society. The case of the petitioner is that due to some political rivalry, as he contested as MLA in the previous Assembly election from Prathipadu constituency and lost the election, only to suppress his voice against the present Government, the impugned proceedings were initiated. Some persons claiming to be the members of the 6" respondent society were approached the Local MLA and in turn he approached the Minister for Agriculture & Cooperation. On the recommendation of the said Minister, the. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, forwarded a complaint to the 2"° respondent and the 3 respondent initiated enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), as ordered by the 2" respondent. The 3 respondent got enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, by the 5" respondent. The 5" respondent submitted the enquiry report besides submitting report about final irregularities and recommended for initiating civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the persons concerned. Based on the enquiry report of the 5" respondent submitted under Section 51 of the Act, the 3% respondent, without fairly conducting enquiry under Section 60 of the Act by giving opportunity to participate in the enquiry, passed the impugned order proposing to initiate civil and _ criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Assailing the illegal and arbitrary action of the 3™ respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.
Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri V.V.Satish, learned advocate on record, would contend that the enquiry conducted by the 5"
respondent is only an administrative enquiry, wherein the petitioner would not be given any opportunity to participate in the enquiry to defend his case known to law. The enquiry officer under Section 51 of the Act only has to conduct administrative enquiry to find out only constitution, working and _ financial condition of the society and submit report to the 3 respondent to initiate enquiry under Section 60 of the Act to take further appropriate action as per Section 60(1) of the Act. But, the 3 respondent, even before initiation of enquiry under Section 60 of the Act, passed the impugned proceedings pre-judging the issue and to initiate proceedings under civil and criminal against the petitioner which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, to defend his case by participating in the enquiry to be conducted under Section 60 of the Act, based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer under Section 51 of the Act. He further submits that a notice was issued by the 5" respondent based on the impugned proceedings against another affected person and he filed W.P.No.18818 of 2019, wherein this Court passed an interim order dated 27.11.2019, staying the proceedings insofar as the petitioner therein is concerned. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 51 and 60 of the Act to say that the enquiry under section 51 of the Act is only an administrative enquiry. The scope of enquiry under Section 51 of the Act is with regard to the constitution, working and financial condition of the society. Based on the enquiry report submitted under Section 51 of the Act, the 3 respondent has to initiate the proceedings by conducting enquiry under Section 60 of the Act and that enquiry should be like Civil Court enquiry as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 121 of the Act. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer under section 51 of the Act alone without conducting any enquiry as required under Section 60 of the Act, the 3"
respondent passed the impugned proceedings initiating civil and criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The impugned order is passed without preceded by any enquiry under Section 60 of the Act, which is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Sections 51 and 60 of the Act and is liable to be set aside.
Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri V.Venu Gopal, learned counsel appearing for 6" respondent, would submit that the enquiry officer after conducting enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, submitted report to the 3"
respondent as ordered by the 3" respondent. Mere recommendation for recovery of the amounts from the persons responsible by invoking action under Section 61 of the Act and suggested for initiation of civil and criminal proceedings, would not vitiate the conduct of enquiry by the enquiry officer under Section 51 of the Act. The District Registrar being the authority under Section 60 of the Act, based on the report submitted by the enquiry officer under Section 51 of the Act, passed the impugned proceedings dated 26.06.2020. Based on the finding of the enquiry officer, taking the follow up action by the officers concerned as per Section 60 of the Act, is not illegal. The entire process of conducting enquiry, submission of report and initiation of proceedings under impugned proceedings, are as per the provisions of Sections 51 and 60 of the Act. There is no illegality or irregularity which warrants interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Government Pleader has stoutly opposed for grant of any interim order and submits that if any interim orders are granted, the enquiry contemplated under Section 60 of the Act would be stalled.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court prima facie found that the 3" respondent being an authority under Section 60 of the Act, instead of proceeding as per the provisions of Section 60 of the Act b issuing notices to the persons alleged to have been caused loss to the 6° respondent society, based on the report submitted under Section 51 of the Act, the authority has to conduct an independent enquiry as required under section 60 of the Act by giving opportunity to the persons against whom the enquiry initiated. As Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 121 of the Act, the authority has to conduct enquiry akin to the Civil Court enquiry before fastening the liability on the persons responsible for causing loss and for recovery. Based on such enquiry only, he has to initiate action for recovery of the amounts and recommend for criminal and disciplinary action. But, a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 26.06.2020 reveals that the 3" respondent has merely based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer under Section 51 of the Act, initiated impugned proceedings even before initiation of conduct of enquiry as required under Section 60 of the Act. Hence, the impugned order passed in violation of provisions of Section 60 of the Act and principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for grant of interim direction.
Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim suspension, suspending the impugned proceedings dated 26.06.2020 passed by the 3 respondent. However, this order does not preclude the 3 respondent, the authority under Section 60 of the Act, to initiate and conduct enquiry as per the provisions of Section 60 of the Act."
SD/-K.JAGAN MOHAN DEPUTY.REGISTRAR ITTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Agricultural and Cooperation (Coop.IV) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District
2. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Skylar Towers, Near D.no.2-16-83, 11th line, Syamala Nagar, Guntur.
3. The Special Category Deputy Registrar/ District Cooperative Officer, East Godavari District at Kakinada.
4. Divisional Registrar, Coop. Society, Peddapuram, East Godavari District.
5. The Assistant Registrar -Il, Sub Division Prathipadu, East Godavari District.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Lampakalova Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Lampakalova, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District.
7. The District Collector, East Godavari District. (Addresses 1 to 7 by RPAD)
8. One CC to SRI V V SATISH Advocate [OPUC]
9. One CC to SRI V VENUGOPAL, Advocate [OPUC]
10. Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
11.One spare copy ra a Ae HIGH COURT MGRJ DATED:10/11/2020 ORDER IA.NO.1 OF 2020 IN WP.No.15604 of 2020 INTERIM SUSPENSION