Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gopu Jayapal Reddy vs The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 1 October, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(3)ALT657
ORDER Reddeppa Reddy, J.
1. When the petition for suspension of the impugned order came up for hearing, all the counsel including Mr. S. Lakshma Reddy learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 represented that the main Writ Petition may be disposed of. It is accordingly done.
2. The matter arises under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It relates to merger or amalgamation of Ameenabad Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (hereinafter called 'Ameenabad Society') with Chennaraopet Large Scale Co-operative Society Ltd., (hereinafter called 'Chennaraopet Society') of which the petitioner herein is a member. The point for determination is whether it is permissible for the Government in exercise of its revisional power under Section 77 of the Act to reverse the order of the Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar for Co-operative Societies (hereinafter called 'the Commissioner') passed under Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the Act, without assigning any reasons.
3. The facts of the case are as follows:-
The area of operation of Chennaraopet Society extends over 16 villages including Ameenabad, Chandrugonda and papaiahpet for which there are separate Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies. Some of the residents of Ameenabad, Chandrugonda and of Papaiahpet are also the members of Chennaraopet Society. Thus, there was overlapping of jurisdiction of Societies in that area. For the purpose of avoiding such overlapping jurisdiction, the Collector (Co-operation) Warangal (hereinafter called 'the Collector') issued a notification dated 20th March, 1987 proposing merger/amalgamation of Ameenabad Society and two other societies with Chennaraopet Society and calling for objections/suggestions therefor. After considering the objections/suggestions, the Collector passed proceedings Rc. No. 1414/87 dated 20th April, 1987 ordering merger of Ameenabad Society and the other two societies with Chennaraopet Society. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the President of Ameenabad Society filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the same was disposed of by an order dated 8th May, 1987 in Appeal No. 3/1987 retaining Ameenabad Society independently and cancelling its merger with Chennaraopet Society. The said order was questioned by the members of Chennaraopet Society in W.P. No. 13368/1987 before this Court. This Court by its order dated 20th November, 1987 set aside the order in Appeal No. 3/87 dated 8th May, 1987 and directed the Commissioner to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity to all the concerned parties. In pursuance thereof, the Commissioner, having considered the matter afresh, remanded the case by his proceedings dated 20th January, 1988, to the Collector, who instead of considering the matter afresh issued a notification dated 11th March, 1988 under Section 15-A of the Act, proposing to identify Chennaraopet Society as viable society and for merger of Ameenabad Society, Papaiahpet PACS and Chandrugonda PACS with Chennaraopet Society and calling for objections/suggestions therefor. After considering the objections/suggestions received in response to the notification dated 11th March, 1988, the Collector passed orders in Rc. No. 1414/87-D dated 20th August, 1988 identifying Chennaraopet Society as viable society and ordering the merger of Ameenabad Society and the other two societies with Chennaraopet Society so as to avoid overlapping jurisdiction. The said order was upheld by the Commissioner by an order dated 9th October, 1988 in Appeal No. 6/88-SW filed by the President of the Ameenabad Society. Elaborate reasons were given in the said order. However, on a revision petition filed by the President of Ameenabad Society, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in G.O.RT. No. 355, Food and Agriculture (Co-op-III) Department dated 13th February, 1992 set aside the order of the Commissioner and directed that Ameenabad Society should be continued as a separate society. Questioning the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed by a member of Chennaraopet Society.
4. Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Ameenabad Society, the fourth respondent herein, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. His plea is that the petitioner namely, Sri Gopu Jayapal Reddy, has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition and on this ground alone the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. I am unable to accept this plea for more than one reason. Section 15-A(1) of the Act enables any member of the Society to file his objections or suggestions in response to the notification issued thereunder. The objections or sugestions may be for or against the proposed amalgamation or merger etc. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a member of Chennaraopet Society. Moreover, he was a party to the impugned proceedings and in fact he was heard through his counsel by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is significant to note that Ameenabad Society did not oppose the petition filed by the petitioner herein before the Government of Andhra Pradesh for impleading himself as a respondent in the revision petition. Also, the petitioner was heard by the government before passing the impugned order. It looks apparent that the petitioner pursued the cause of Chennaraopet Society. Above all, it may not be proper to throw out a writ filed by a party to the lis on the ground that he has no locus standi. For these reasons, the preliminary objection must fail and it is accordingly overruled.
5. Coming to merits, Sri M.V. Ramana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a formidable plea that the impugned order suffers from the vice of lack of reasons, particularly, when a well-considered order of the Commissioner was sought to be reversed by the Government. To sustain this plea, he has pointed out the reasons recorded by the Collector and the Commissioner for ordering merger of Ameenabad Society with Chennaraopet Society and exposed the hollowness of the impugned order. The orders of the Collector and the Commissioner are lucid and self-explanatory. The Collector recorded his reasons as follows:-
"... Ameenabad PACS cannot be allowed to exist either independently or by amalgamation of PACS Papaiahpet, to avoid overlapping jurisdiction. It was therefore considered that there was no cause to alter the notification so far as Ameenabad is concerned....."
xxx xxx xxxx XIII. In view of provisions Under Section 15-A(1)(b) of the A.P.C.S. Act, the provisions under Para (8) of the G.O. Ms. No. 15 F & A (Co-op.III) Dept., dated 9.1.87 and guidelines issued for re-organisation of PACSs under 'Single Window delivery scheme", I do not find any reason to alter the notification issued by proposing amalgamation of Chandragonda PACS, Papaiahpet PACS and also retaining Ameenabad Village with Chennaraopet PACS and transferring Lingagiri Village to Surpally, PACS for the reasons detailed in the para supra."
The Commissioner having considered the entire matter at great length observed as follows:-
"Ameenabad PACS had scope for improvement in view of the potential added to it in May, 1987, but the society showed decline in its performance. Ameenabad PACS with about 2000 members in 1988 had issued loans hardly to an extent of Rs. l1/2 lakhs in 1988, in Ameenabad village. Therefore, I am of opinion that members of Ameenabad area are being deprived of the good facility available from Chennaraopet LSCS by retaining Ameenabad PACS separately. On the other hand, the performance of Chennaraopet LSCS is better than Ameenabad PACS and the financing bank representatives from S.B.H., expressed willingness to finance Ameenabad area and also to take over the assets and liabilities from D.C.C. Bank, Warangal relating to Ameenabad PACS. Further, Chennaraopet LSCS is reported to be providing marketing and other services and undoubtedly, better services can be expected to farmers from Chennaraopet LSCS than Ameenabad PACS. Chennaraopet is also situated at Mandal Head Quarters with all infrastructure facilities. Hence, I find no justification to continue Ameenabad PACS."
Now, let us see the impugned order. It reads as follows:-
"4. The Government after hearing the petitioner and the concerned on 20-11-1991, the Government have decided to allow the Revision Petition, the Government accordingly allow the R.P. with a direction to continue the Ameenabad PACS, as a separate society and allow to exercise its powers."
It is clear from the proceedings of the Collector and the Commissioner that the merger of Ameenabad Society with Chennaraopet Society was ordered for avoiding overlapping or conflict of jurisdiction of the two societies, which are in the same area and to provide better services to the farmers of Ameenabad. But, it is not discernable from the order of the Government for what reasons the merger was cancelled.
6. I have also perused the file produced by the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation to find out whether any reasons have been recorded in the file; but I find none. The cryptic order passed by the Honourable Minister for Co-operation reads as follows:-
"After hearing the arguments of both parties on 20-11-1991 and after going through the records placed before me, the Revision Petition is allowed with a direction that Ameenabad PACS should be continued as separate society and allow to function with its powers. Issue orders accordingly.
Sd/-
M (CO-OP) 17-12-91."
It is needless to say that it does not improve the situation. The learned Government Pleader for Co-operation tried to sustain the order on the strength of the reasons given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government. It is stated therein that, "The Government while coming to above conclusion examined the records and also various contentions. The records revealed that Ameenabad Society was awarded 55% of marks as against minimum marks of 40 per district. As such the same was viable. Secondly the Ameenabad society was functioning independently even after the registration of the L.S.C.S. Chennaraopet. Further the General Body of the Ameenabad Society passed resolution to keep it separately and Co-op. Central Bank, Warangal which is financing bank for Ameenabad Society represented to retain the society as it is."
It is significant to note that these reasons are not found in the Government file. Moreover, it is a settled proposition of law that what is not contained in the order or in the file cannot be supplemented by way of a counter-affidavit.
Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the reasons given in the counter-affidavit for sustaining the impugned order.
7. Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent tried to pursuade me to sustain the impugned order by drawing my attention to the observation made by the Collector that.
"...Therefore two options available to avoid overlapping jurisdiction either to retain Ameenabad PACS as a separate entity deleting Ameenabad village from the area of operation of the Chennaraopet PACS or to retain the village Ameenabad in the jurisdiction of Chennaraopet, PACs by deleting it from Ameenabad PACS. In order to serve the over-riding considerations of not disturbing the Chennaraopet PACS the second alternative has to prevail i.e., not to disturb the area of operation of the Chennaraopet PACS as it required special status having loan outstandings exceeding Rs. one crore."
True, the Collector considered various pros and cons of the case, but finally he came to the conclusion that Ameenabad Society should be merged with Chennaraopet society. This conclusion was also approved by the Commissioner. In these circumstances, I find no substance in this contention.
8. It is not in dispute that the Government acts as a quasi-judicial authoriy, while exercising its revisional powers under Section 77, of the Act. It needs no emphasis that the revisional authority while exercising its powers as a quasi judicial authority is expected to give reasons in support of its conclusion, particularly when an order of another statutory authority is set aside. Principles of fairness also enjoin a duty on such authority to give reasons. The power of the Government under Section 77 of the Act is not unfettered. It can interfere only when it is satisfied that the order under revision suffers from any illegality or impropriety and not otherwise.
9. In State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"...Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the Tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justice."
10. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, reiterating the need to give reasons observed as follows:-
"Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But' the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. The said purpose would apply equally to al decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording or reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order/need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge."
11. In the light of the above observations of the Supreme Court and in view of the fact that a well-considered order of the Commissioner was reversed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh without assigning any reasons, it is impossible to sustain the impugned order. Accordingly it is set aside.
12. In view of the above finding, in normal course, I would not have remanded the matter to the Government for fresh consideration. But it is brought to my notice that during the pendency of the Revision Petition before the Government fresh elections were held to both the societies and the newly elected bodies are functioning now. In these circumstances, I am inclined to remit the matter back to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for fresh consideration.
13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Government of Andhra Pradesh with a directio to consider the revision petition afresh and dispose of the same within four months from the date of receipt of this order, of course, after giving notice to all the concerned parties. There will be no order as to costs.