Telangana High Court
Kurakula Nagabhushaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 13 February, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 1628 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed calling in question the notice bearing Rc.No. 19/2024-C, dated 11.01.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent - District Cooperative Officer, Khammam.
2. Petitioner claims to be the President of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS), V.V. Palem, Raghunathapalem Mandal, Khammam District, duly elected by the Members of the Managing Committee in February 2020. He is also Chairman of Khammam District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, having been unanimously elected as such. While so, the 2nd respondent issued the notice impugned stating that the members of the Managing Committee have delivered notice dated 11.01.2024 expressing no confidence in petitioner and to convene a meeting at 11.00 A.M. on 27.01.2024. The grievance of petitioner is that the said notice does not contain and / or accompanied by proposed motion, as is required under Section 34-A(2) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'). Petitioner enclosed a copy of the notice issued by the District Cooperative Officer in respect of PACS, Dammapet, Bhadradri Kothagudem District on 12.01.2024 2 which clearly shows the proposed motion delivered by the members of the Society.
3. The 2nd respondent District Cooperative Officer, Khammam produced a copy of written instructions stating that 11 out of 13 members of the Managing Committee of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, V. Venkatayapalem have in-person approached him on 11.01.2024 and submitted written notice signed by them of intention to make motion together with a copy of the proposed motion expressing no confidence on petitioner. In the notice, 11 members have clearly stated that they have no confidence on petitioner and submitted notice of no confidence in Form AAA with witnesses. It is stated, considering the said notice, the 2nd respondent issued notice impugned under Section 34-A(3) of the Act to convene Managing Committee meeting at 11.00 A.m. on 27.01.2024 duly observing fifteen clear days from the date of notice and notice has been served to all the members on 12.01.2024.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar argued on behalf of Sri Aravala Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner. He submits that sub-section (1) of Section 34-A of the Act contemplates that motion expressing want of confidence in the President may be made as per the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections. In the present case, the impugned 3 notice does not contain a motion expressing want of confidence in the President. It is submitted that there is only notice of intention of motion but not proposed motion as against petitioner, as is required under sub-section (2) which contemplates written notice of intention to make a motion together with copy of proposed motion to be delivered to the Registrar. Learned counsel submits that sub-section (3) states that Registrar shall convene a meeting for consideration of motion at the office of the Society, whereas in the present case, there is no motion moved by the members and the question of consideration of notice delivered by the members does not arise in the context of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 34-A of the Act. It is submitted that notice delivered by the members was accompanied by Form AAA (Rule 6-A(1)) of the Rules, dated 11.01.2024 and there is no such form prescribed under Rule 6A(1). Thus, the submission of the said form is misconceived. It is further submitted that a reading of Form AAA under Rule 6- A(1) of the Rules as submitted before this Court shows that it is in the format of a written notice as contemplated in the first part of sub-section (2) of Section 34-A of the Act. Thus, in the absence of a motion accompanying the written notice, the requirement of second part of sub-section (2) of Section 34-A of the Act is not complied with. Learned Senior Counsel submits 4 that non-service of notice of fifteen clear days would make the meeting and the proceedings taken thereunder null and void.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation submits that the impugned notice was issued under Section 34- A of the Act and there is no illegality. It is submitted that the Managing Committee members have submitted notice of no confidence and also proposed motion in Form-AAA with witnesses that petitioner is not available to them and they have no confidence on him. It is submitted that with reference to the 'no confidence motion' of the Managing Committee members of the Society, notice was issued vide Rc.No. 19/2004-C, dated 11.01.2024. Here, petitioner falsely mentioned that the District Cooperative Officer, Khammam does not refer to the consideration of proposed motion. In compliance to the provisions of Section 34-A of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, notice was issued to convene Managing Committee meeting on 27.01.2024 at 11.00 A.M. According to learned Government Pleader, as per sub-section (3) of Section 34-A, in order to consider no confidence notice delivered by 11 members of the Managing Committee of the Society, a notice was issued on 11.01.20024 to convene the meeting on 27.01.2024 at 11.00 A.M. Learned Government Pleader annexed with the written instructions Form AAA issued under Rule 6- 5 A(1) on 11.01.2024 wherein 11 members requested to convene a meeting for consideration of the motion. He submits that in the absence of statutory prescription of service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' to the members, the impugned notice does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. He relied on the order dated 09.04.2013 passed by this Court in Darnam Laxminarayana v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sircilla, Karimnagar District (Writ Petition No. 39323 of 2012) wherein it has been held as under:
" As rightly pointed out by Sri S.Satyam Reddy, there is a material distinction between the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the A.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 qua the procedure to be followed in the meeting convened for carrying out No Confidence Motion. In contrast to the provisions of the former Act, in the latter Act, specific debate of No Confidence Motion is prescribed. But, the question is whether this distinction would, by itself, make service of copy of No Confidence Motion mandatory.
It needs to be pointed out that even in the absence of a debate, Form-V prescribed under the Rules framed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, provides for service of a copy of Motion of No Confidence. Interestingly, even though the provisions of the Act envisaged a debate, no such provision is incorporated therein. If the Legislature felt that for the purpose of debate, enclosure of a copy of No Confidence Motion is necessary, there would have been no reason why a specific provision is not incorporated therein. No ignorance can be attributed to the Legislature. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that in its wisdom, the Legislature felt that service of copy of No Confidence Motion on the members is not required. The Courts cannot substitute its own opinion for the wisdom of the Legislature.6
I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules, either expressly or by necessary implication, mandating service of copy of No Confidence Motion along with the notice to be served By the registrar to all the members, it is not possible for this Court to hold that service of copy of No Confidence Motion must be read into the provisions of the Act.
There is another angle from which this issue needs to be examined. There is a minimum time limit of 15 days between the service of notice and the date of No Confidence Motion. If the persons against whom the No Confidence Motion is moved or his supporters feel the necessity of knowing the contents of the Motion, they will have sufficient time to approach the Registrar with a request to furnish a copy of No Confidence Motion and other necessary details regarding the No Confidence Motion. If such a request is made, this Court feels that it is mandatory on the part of the Registrar to furnish a copy of No Confidence Motion and other details relevant for the purpose of Motion to such members. The Legislature has, obviously, assumed that as, such a facility is always available to the members, the requirement of service of copy of No Confidence Motion along with the notice is not necessary.
In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that in the absence of statutory prescription of service of copy of No Confidence Motion to the members, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.1 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. However, as observed herein before, the petitioners shall be free to approach respondent No.1 with a request to furnish copies of the No Confidence Motion. If the petitioners make such a request, respondent No.1 shall forthwith furnish the copies thereof. Since the proposed meeting could not take place in view of the interim order granted by this Court, respondent No. 1 is directed to issue a fresh notice to the members by fixing a date for considering the No Confidence Motion."(emphasis supplied)
6. Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that non-service of notice of fifteen clear 7 days would make the meeting and the proceedings taken thereunder null and void cannot be said to be the correct law.
He relied on the judgments of this Court in Velpula Prasanthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and K.Sujatha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2.
In Velpula Prasanthi's case (supra), it has been held by this Court as under:
" 9. Mandal Praja Parishad is democratically elected body comprising members representing respective territorial constituencies. One of them is elected as President. It is permissible to members of Mandal Praja Parishad to express no confidence in the President. A President can be removed from his office if majority of the members of Mandal Praja Parishad vote against him. Section 245 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 enables members to move motion expressing want of confidence in the President. Rules notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 200 dated
28.04.1998 regulate the issue of motion of no confidence. However, to understand the scope of these rules, it must be remembered that dissent is essential component of democratic institution and if members of the Mandal Praja Parishad have serious grievance against continuation of incumbent as President their opinion/will cannot be suppressed by technical plea and rules must be understood in the light of overarching provision in Section 245 of the Act, which vests power of expression of no confidence against President by members and democratic process.
10. Rules notified vide G.O.Ms No. 200 dated 28.4.1998 regulate issues of motion of no confidence. One half or more members of the Mandal Praja Parishad may move motion of no confidence against the President. Said members should inform the Sub-Collector, being competent authority, their intention to move motion of no confidence against the President and to request him to convene special session of 1 2019(1) ALD 422 2 2004(3) ALD 1(FB) 8 Mandal Praja Parishad. Rule 2 of the Rules prescribes procedure as to when and how such request can be made.
11. To appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to consider the scope of Rule 3 of the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under:
"Rule-3. The concerned officer specified in Rule 2 (hereinafter in this rule referred to as said officer) shall then convene and preside over a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of a Gram Panchayat, or at the Mandal Parishad, or at the Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, on a date appointed by him which shall not later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Rule 2 was delivered to him. He shall give to every member of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad as the case may be the notice of not less than fifteen clear days excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting, of such meeting in Form-IV, in Form-V or in Form-VI annexed to these rules either in English or in Telugu or in Urdu language, whichever is applicable. Every such notice shall be delivered as specified below, namely:--
(a) by giving or tendering such notice to such member, or
(b) if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business or by giving or tendering the same to some adultmember or servant of his family; or
(c) if such member does not reside in the Gram Panchayat area or Mandal Parishad area, or within the District and if his address is known to the District Panchayat Officer/Chief Executive Authority/Collector or the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to be elsewhere, by sending the same to him through registered post with acknowledgment due; or
(d) if none of the means aforesaid is available or if the persons referred to in clauses (a) and (b) refuse to receive the notice, by affixing the same at some conspicuous part of his place of residence or business:
Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, it shall be adjourned, and the said officer shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he received the intimation about the vacation of stay and after 9 giving to the members, a notice of not less than fifteen clear days excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting of such adjourned meeting."
12. Rule 3 regulates the procedure to be followed by the competent authority after he receives the request. There are two important time lines required to be observed by competent authority. First, the competent authority must convene the special session of Mandal Praja Parishad within 30 days of receipt of request by him; and secondly, when he convenes the meeting, he must maintain 15 days gap between the date of notice in Form V and date of special session excluding those two dates. A reading of the Rule makes it clear that while not maintaining 15 days gap after the date of notice in Form-V and date of scheduled meeting invalidates the notice, but merely because meeting is not convened within 30 days after receiving notice of no confidence, the notice does not lapse/does not become otiose. At the most the competent authority may be liable for disciplinary action. The notice would lapse only in the event of 'no quorum' on the day when special session is convened (Rule 7) and in no other contingency. Further, there is no bar imposed to convene a meeting second time if no meeting took place on the date fixed in Form-V.
14. According to learned counsel for petitioner, as 30 days time expired from the date of notice of motion of no confidence, it is no more permissible to the competent authority to convene the special session of Mandal Praja Parishad. In the instant case, initially learned single Judge of this Court granted stay and subsequently Writ Appeal as well as Writ Petition were disposed of by common order setting aside notice in Form-V and granting liberty to the competent authority to take further course of action".
In K. Sujatha's case (supra), this Court held as under:
" 28. The purpose and object of giving notice of consideration of no confidence motion is only to give due intimation to the members or information of the proposed meeting. Therefore, the fact that a member has got a shorter period of notice than fifteen clear days from the date of receipt of the notice would not matter. When notice is sent by post and the law permits the date of sending of notice to be treated as the date of 10 delivery in that case obviously the period available to the member will be shorter than fifteen clear days from delivery to meeting, therefore, there is no reason why the Rule 3 be held to be mandatory as regards the service of notice. Unless it is shown that the shortfall in the period of notice of the meeting has caused some prejudice to the member, neither the meeting nor the proceedings taken there under would be said to be invalid. It is only in the eventuality of prejudice being shown that the meeting or the proceedings taken thereunder can said to be invalid. The Legislature has rightly not provided in the rule that non-compliance of any shortfall in the notice would render the meeting or the proceedings taken thereunder to be invalid. Had that been the intention, the Legislature, obviously, would have provided since the law had been clearly settled by the time the Act was enacted and the Rules were framed by the judgment in Narasimaiah's case. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court laid down in Anandareddy's case that non- service of notice of fifteen clear days would make the meeting and the proceedings taken thereunder null and void cannot be said to be the correct law.
7. From the above extracted legal position, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules, either expressly or by necessary implication, mandating service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' along with the notice to be served by the registrar to all the members, it is not possible to hold that service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' must be read into the provisions of the Act. As rightly held by this Court in Darnam Laxminarayana's case (supra), when there is a minimum time limit of 15 days between service of notice and date of 'No 11 Confidence Motion', if the person against whom 'No Confidence Motion' is moved or his supporters feel the necessity of knowing the contents of the Motion, they will have sufficient time to approach the Registrar with a request to furnish a copy of 'No Confidence Motion' and other necessary details regarding 'No Confidence Motion'. If such a request is made, this Court feels that it is mandatory on the part of the Registrar to furnish a copy of 'No Confidence Motion' and other details relevant for the purpose of Motion to such members. The Legislature has, obviously, assumed that as such a facility is always available to the members, the requirement of service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' along with the notice is not necessary.
8. In Y. Raghava Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 3, this Court held as under:
" 8. We have perused the record. The notice was served though the copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence is not attached with the said notice. Be that as it is, nothing has been pointed out at the Bar whereby, by the Legislature, it has been provided that non- compliance of processual or procedural provisions of service of notice or the form of notice would render the vote of no-confidence invalid. The object of procedural law is to serve the person or appraise the person that a vote of no-confidence would be held on a particular date and at a particular time for consideration of the motion of no-confidence. It is only the intention of the proposer which has to be intimated to the members, which has been categorically made in the present case. It 3 1999 (2) ALT 175 12 cannot be assumed that the petitioner was not aware of the object of the meeting, time of meeting and place of meeting. There is nothing on. record from which we can assume that even the copy of the proposed motion was not enclosed, if it would have been so, the members would have approached the authority stating that the notice does not carry the copy which is stated to have been enclosed with the notice. Official acts are presumed to have been done in due discharge of the duty as envisaged and contained in the notice. There is a presumption that a copy of the motion has in fact been enclosed unless contrary is proved. There is nothing to prove contrary to the record. There is no dispute that eight members out of the twelve members had proposed to move a vote of no-confidence. The meeting was already held and it is a fate accomplished that out of the twelve members, eight have voted in favour of the no- confidence motion. The notice being only directory, the mere use of the word "shall", cannot give rise to it being a mandatory in the facts and circumstances of the case, and specially when no consequence for non-compliance of the requirements of the notice in Form-V has been provided by legislation. In view of this, we find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence has not been enclosed with Form-V notice.
9. In the alternative, as stand from the pleadings, the copy sent was only in Form-ll which did not contain the names of the persons who presented the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which may, at the most, raise is to the pedestal of an irregularity which will not render the proceedings as non-est or bad. There are no pari materia provisions provided for to the effect that non service of true copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence would render the notice invalid.
This Court is in full agreement with the above findings.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that this Court, on 24.01.2024, while issuing notice before admission, directed that meeting scheduled to be held on 27.01.2024 may go on, but the official respondents are directed not to declare the result 13 till 30.01.2024. Pursuant to the said direction, it appears, meeting was conducted on 27.01.2024. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has submitted in a sealed cover the proceedings dated 27.01.2024, which reads as under:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER, KHAMMAM (Issued under section 34-A of the of the TCS Act, 1964) Present: Smt. A.Vijaya Kumari, M.A., B.Ed.
Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Khammam.
Rc.No.19/2024-C, Dated: 27.01.2024.
Sub: Cooperation Department- PACS Ltd., V. Venkatayapalem, of Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Regd. No.2469T.E.-Passed no confidence motion against Sri. Kurakula Nagabhushaiah, President of the Society
-Removed him from the post of the President-Orders -Issued.
Read: 1. No confidence Notice against the President of the PACS Ltd., V. Venkatayapalem, dated: 11.01.2024 submitted by the Managing Committee members of the Society.
2. This office Notice, Rc. No, even, Dated: 11.01.2024.
3. Minutes of the Managing Committee meeting dated: 27.01.2024.
-:oOo:-
ORDER:
Whereas vide reference 1" read above (11) Managing Committee members of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., V. Venkatayapaem of RaghunadhapalemMandal, Regd. No.2469 T.E have submitted no confidence notice against Sri. Kurakula Nagabhushaiah, S/o late Laxmaiah, President of the Society.
By considering the no confidence notice, vide reference 2nd read above a notice was issued to the Managing Committee members of the Society to convene the Managing Committee meeting at 11.00AM on 27.01.2024 and the notice was served on all the Managing Committee members.
As per the schedule issued vide reference 2nd read above, the managing Committee meeting of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., V. Venkatayapalem was conducted at 11.00AM on 27.01.2024 in the office of the Society.
The District Cooperative Officer, Khammam has convened meeting at 11.00 AM on 27.01.2024,(11) Managing Committee members out of (13)have been attended to the meeting at 11.00AM on 27.01.2024. As per the schedule, soon after taking attendance of Managing Committee members of the Society, placed the Agenda Item of the No confidence motion against Sri Kurakula Nagabhushaiah, S/o Laxmaiah, the President of the Society. The agenda item was readout to the members, then allowed to debate on no confidence motion in the M. C. Meeting. The Managing Committee members, 14 who have attended to the meeting participated in the debate. After completion of debate, voting was conducted on no confidence motion. Out of (13) Managing Committee members, (11) members voted for supporting the no confidence motion, as per the provisions of Section 34-A Sub section (11) of Telangana Cooperative Societies Act 1964, the no confidence motion was won.
In this regard, I the Deputy Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Khammam by virtue of powers vested on me Vide G.O.Ms.No. 10 Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop-II) Dept. dated. 30-01-2017 and G.O.Ms.No.1 Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop-II) Dept. dated. 10.01.2024,do hereby remove Sri Kurakula Nagabhushaiah S/o late Laxmaih from the post of the President of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., V. Venkatayapaem of Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, Regd. No.2469 T.E. This order will come into force with immediate effect.
Given under my hand and seal of this office on this 27th day of January 2024.
10. The District Cooperative Officer, Khammam has also produced before this Court Minutes of the meeting in a sealed cover. After perusal of the same, the said cover was handed over to learned Government Pleader for Cooperation.
11. A perusal of the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Khammam dated 27.01.2024 shows that as per schedule, on 27.01.2024 at 11.00 A.M., the agenda item was read out to the members, then allowed to debate on no confidence motion in the M.C. meeting. After completion of debate, voting was conducted; out of 13 members, 11 voted in support of no confidence motion, as per the provisions of Section 34-A (11) of the Act, no confidence was won. The District Cooperative Officer by virtue of powers vested on him vide G.O.Ms.No. 10, dated 30.01.2017 and G.O.Ms.No. 1, dated 10.01.2024 removed petitioner from the post of President of 15 PACS, V.Venkatayapalem with immediate effect. In view of the same and also in view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Petition deserves no further consideration and is liable to be dismissed.
12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 13th February 2024 ksld