Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sanka Ramesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 April, 2022
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.14797 OF 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners herein, who claim to be residents of Pothunuru village and members of the Bhogeswara Swamy Visala Sahakara Parapathi Sangham, Pothunuru village, Denduluru mandal, West Godavari district-6th respondent, seek to challenge G.O.Rt.No.451, Agriculture and Co- operation (Coop.II) Department, dated 16.07.2021, insofar as appointment of 7th respondent herein as Chairperson of person in-charge committee (PIC) for management of affairs of 6th respondent is concerned, as violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act, 1964').
2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that 7th respondent is wife of one Dulipalla Nagendra Vara Prasad, who worked as President of the Managing Committee of 6th respondent society during the years 2013 to 2019, and on the allegation of abusing his position during his tenure and misappropriation funds of the societies by committing grave irregularities and illegalities, enquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act, 1964 is pending against him. It is further stated that due to political pressure, 1st respondent issued the impugned G.O.Rt.No.451, dated 16.07.2021 appointing 7th 2 respondent as Chairperson of PIC for management of affairs of 6th respondent society by invoking the provisions of Section 32 (7) (a) (i) and 32 (7) (a) (ii) of the Act, 1964 and relaxing continuation of existing committee by invoking Section 123 thereof. Hence the Writ Petition.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and contending inter alia as follows.
There is no violation of any provisions of the Act, 1964 in respect of appointment of 7th respondent as Chairperson of PIC of 6th respondent society. The discretion given to respondents 1 and 2 under Section 32 (7) of the Act, 1964 is wide without fetters or restriction. Enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, 1964 on the affairs of 6th respondent society was completed and report was received in the office of 4th respondent and the same was submitted to 3rd respondent on 29.06.2021 for issuance of review, and soon after receipt of review, independent inquiry would be taken up by 4th respondent before initiation of surcharge proceedings under Section 60 (1) of the Act, 1964. Inspection under Section 52 of the Act, 1964 was completed and surcharge order under Section 60(1) of the Act, 1964 was passed against the Board of Directors of 6th respondent society, including husband of 7th respondent. 3 G.O.Rt.No.451, dated 16.07.2021 was issued with a purpose of replacing the official persons-in-charge and to reappoint suitable non-official persons-in-charge with modifications, if any, needed in the persons-in-charge committee due to local exigencies like death/resignation/ compliance to eligibility criteria and subject to satisfaction of their credential, and exercise of power under Section 123 of the Act, 1964 by the State cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. In the absence of any allegation of any malice, etc. against 7th respondent, the petitioners have no legal right to challenge her appointment. 4th respondent will initiate follow up action in respect of recovery of surcharge amount pursuant to Section 52 inspection report, and in respect of enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, follow up action will be taken up in due course.
There are strong and compelling reason for issuing G.O.rt.No.451, dated 16.07.2021, pursuant thereto, 7th petitioner and two others were appointed as persons-in- charge, after considering their eligibility criteria, and 18 items check list designed in accordance with the Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder would show that 7th respondent and 2 others are eligible for the respective positions, and they have already assumed charge on 31.07.2021 itself. Petitioners have no legal right to question the same on the ground of the alleged 4 misappropriation of funds by husband of 7th respondent. Petitioners are political opponents of 7th respondent and her husband. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
4. 7th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ affidavit and contending inter alia that the petitioners have not pointed out any statutory violation in issuing the impugned G.O. It is unfortunate allegations against a person, who is not a party to the present Writ Petition. There is no political interference in her appointment and there are no violations of any of the provisions of the Act, 1964 while appointing her. The allegation that this respondent is not qualified to hold the post, is not substantiated by any material. There are no valid or substantial reasons warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 7th respondent, who is wife of one Dhulipalla Nagendra Vara Prasad, has been appointed as Chairperson of PIC for management of the affairs of 6th respondent society. He further submitted that husband of 7th respondent worked as President of the Managing Committee of 6th respondent society during the years 2013 to 2019 and during his 5 tenure, he grossly abused his position and misappropriated funds of 6th respondent society by committing grave illegalities and irregularities. It is his contention that in respect of the said allegations, enquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act, 1964 has been initiated against him and the same is pending, and when the husband of 7th respondent is facing enquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act for the alleged irregularities in the affairs of 6th respondent society, 7th respondent, who is of the said person, cannot be appointed as Chairperson of the PIC of the said society.
By taking this Court to several provisions of the Act, 1964, the learned counsel submits that by any stretch of imagination, when husband of 7th respondent is facing an enquiry initiated by the Registrar, 7th respondent, who is wife of the said person, cannot be appointed as Chairperson, as she would insinuate other persons and would in a position to manipulate records so as to favour her husband as she is at the helm of affairs of the said society. Stating so, he prays to quash the order of appointment G.O.Rt.No.451, Agriculture and Co-operation (Coop.II) Department, dated 16.07.2021.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for 7th respondent submits that there is absolutely no provision under the Act, 6 1964 where it can be said that the appointment of 7th respondent as Chairperson of PIC is illegal or irregular; that there is no provision by which it can be inferred that appointment of 7th respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1964.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Co-operation concurs with the submissions made by the learned counsel for 7th respondent.
8. This Court perused the record and the provisions of the Act, 1974. A perusal of Section 32 (7) (A) of the Act, 1964 does not disclose any parameter for appointment of a Person in-charge. It only says to the extent that if there is no committee or in the opinion of the Government or the Registrar, if there is no possibility of conducting election of members of the Committee, then they can appoint a person to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding one year, and the Government may on their own, extend from time to time, such period beyond six months and the whole process should not exceed beyond 3 years. A perusal of Section 21A of the Act, 1964 would go to show that it deals with disqualification of membership of committee. 7
9. Relying upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued vehemently that 7th respondent is a relative of Ex-President, who is facing enquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act, 1964, and so, she is not entitled to continue as a person in-charge.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that on a reading of Section 21A of the Act, 1964 would go to show that no person shall be eligible for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the committee, if he or she is such near relative of such paid employee of the society or its financing bank as may be prescribed. Husband of 7th respondent has not been disqualified and is only facing enquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act, 1964. Till today, nothing has been culled out of the enquiry. At this stage, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that husband of 7th respondent has been disqualified from membership of the committee. Truth or otherwise of the accusations as against husband of 7th respondent that are made would be culled out only after full-fledged enquiry. This is a premature stage to come to the conclusion that 7th respondent is not eligible to be continued as a person in-charge of the society. More over, husband of 7th respondent is not a paid employee of the society and therefore the case of the petitioner would 8 not in any way come within the purview of the provisions of the Act, 1964.
11. On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by 7th respondent goes to show that the said G.O. has been issued in pursuance of the policy decision taken by the Government to replace the official persons-in-charge and to reappoint suitable non-official persons-in-charge to manage the affairs of the society. The appointment of 7th respondent has been done in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1964.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that if the committee is not functional, it is not even possible to call for General Body Meeting for the purpose of conducting elections to the members of the Committee. The conduct of elections would happen only when there is a committee and if the committee is functional. The other contentions raised by the petitioner are not enough in view of the fact that there is no provision under the Act, 1964 which says that appointment of 7th respondent as person in-charge is illegal or arbitrary. In view of the same, this Court finds that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9
13. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J 22nd .04.2022 DRK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14797 OF 2021 22nd .04.2022 DRK