IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21707 of 2007 Between: Meesala Ramaiah, S/o Venkateswarlu, Chief Promoter of Sri Sai Mutually Aided Lift Irrigation Co.operative Society Ltd., Gudimetla, Gudimetla Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Registrar/District Co.operative Officer, Krishna, at Machilipatnam. 2 The Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd., D.No.40-27/5/1, 1st Floor, Municipal Employees Colony, Near:Pinnamaneni Poly Clinic, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd., Nandigama, Krishna District. 4 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandigama, Krishna District. 5 Sri Sai Ettipohothala Abhivruddi Sangam, Gudimetla, represented by its Chief Promoter, Sri Vipparla Narsaiah, Gudimetla Village, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in delaying the registration of the society viz., Sri Sai Mutually Aided Lift Irrigation Co.operative Society Limited, Gudimetla promoted by the petitioner under the A.P.Mutually Aided Co.operative Societies Act and the action of the 2nd respondent in directing to handover the Lift Irrigation Scheme to the 5th respondent society without any power or authority and without considering the proceedings in Rc.No.2818/07/A-2 dt.25-07-2007 of the 1st respondent addressed to the 2nd respondent and the action of the 3rd respondent and its subordinates in interfering with and insisting the petitioner to hand over the lift irrigation scheme to the 5th respondent as arbitrary and illegal and violative of principles of natural justice as also contrary to the circular Memo No.IDC/MD/P&M/HOE/92/VOL.III/5940, dt.03-10-1996 of the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 21707 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration t hat the action of the 1st respondent in delaying the registration of the society viz., Sri Sai Mutually Aided Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society Limited, Gudimetla promoted by the petitioner under the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act is arbitrary and illegal and further to declare that the action of the 2nd respondent in directing to handover the Lift Irrigation Scheme to the 5th respondent society is without any power or authority. It is not in dispute that the A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited set up Lift Irrigation Scheme at Gudimetla village in the year 1995. The 5th respondent herein, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was entrusted with the maintenance of the said Lift Irrigation Scheme. After enactment of the A.P. Societies Registration Act 35 of 2001, the 5th respondent-Society was issued a fresh registration certiﬁcate by the Registrar of Societies on 12-09-2007 vide registration No.391/2007. Having considered the same, the 2nd respondent-Executive Engineer by order dated 03-10-2007 ordered to continue the operation and maintenance of the Lift Irrigation Scheme, Gudimetla by the 5th respondent-Society. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein along with 21 other villagers of Gudimetla submitted proposals on 17-07-2007 for registration of a Lift Irrigation Society under A.P. Mutually Aided Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘A.P.MACS Act, 1995) in the name and style of “Sri Sai Mutually Aided Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society Limited, Gudimetla” enclosing a registration certiﬁcate bearing Registration No.172/1995 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the name and style of “Sri Sai Ethipothala Abhivrudhi Sangam”. The said application was made purportedly on the basis of the circular dated 03-10-1996 issued by the 2nd respondent-Corporation proposing to handover all the commissioned Lift Irrigation Schemes to the beneﬁciary committees registered under the A.P.MACS Act, 1995. Similar application dated 20.6.2007 was made by one Vipparla Narsaiah and 20 others enclosing a registration certiﬁcate with the very same Registration No.172 of 1995 for registration under A.P.MACS Act, 1995 in the name and style of “Sri Sai Mutually Aided Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society Limited, Gudimetla”. Since two applications were received from two diﬀerent groups for registration of the same society under the A.P.MACS Act, it appears that the District Cooperative Oﬃcer, Krishna at Machilipatnam addressed a letter dated 25-07-2007 to the 2nd respondent seeking certain clarifications and further proceedings are pending. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in keeping the petitioner’s application pending, the present writ petition is filed. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is claimed that the petitioner and the group of people supporting him are representing the original Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Registration No.172/95 dated 29-09-1995 and that the other group of people, with an intention to grab the Management of the Lift Irrigation, have been making false claims and got registered a society under the A.P. Societies Act, 2001 vide Registration No.391/2007. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent committed an error in allowing the 5th respondent to continue the operation of the Lift Irrigation Scheme merely on the basis of the said certiﬁcate without considering the claim of the petitioner and his group who are validly representing the society. The 1st respondent-Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Oﬃcer, Krishna, Machilipatnam ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that the proposals received from the writ petitioner dated 17-07-2007 as well as one Vipparla Narasaiah dated 20- 06-2007 for registration under the provisions of A.P.MACS Act are pending. Since both the above said proposals were submitted for registration of a Lift Irrigation Society in the same name and style of “Sri Sai Mutually Aided Cooperative Lift Irrigation Society Limited, Gudimetla” to maintain the same Lift Irrigation Scheme, a clariﬁcation was sought from the 2nd respondent and he was also requested to furnish certain documents. In reply to the same, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 14-08-2007 informed that the Gudimetla Lift Irrigation Scheme was being maintained by Sri Sai Ethipothala Abhivrudhi Sangam registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Registration No.172/95) till Kareef of 2006. The 2nd respondent was again requested to furnish details of the aycudars of Gudimetla Lift Irrigation Scheme and accordingly, by letter dated 02-10-2007 the list consisting of 425 aycutdars was furnished. That apart, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 14-07-2007 informed the 1st respondent that vide proceedings dated 03-10-2007 the Lift Irrigation Scheme was handed over to the existing Society. The 1st respondent was also advised by the 2nd respondent that the Gudimetla Lift Irrigation Scheme which is a single unit has to be maintained by a single Society with all beneﬁciaries as members and therefore there is no need to register another Society under the provisions of the A.P.MACS Act. A separate counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the 2nd respondent stating that the A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation is a Government company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 for augmenting the irrigation potential in the State of Andhra Pradesh by executing lift irrigation and ground water schemes. It is also stated that the ﬁrst stage of Gudimetla Lift Irrigation Scheme on Krishna river was partially commissioned in March 1997 and subsequently, the total scheme comprising two stages was commissioned in November, 2002. As per the policy of the Government, the scheme executed by the Corporation are being handed over to the beneﬁciary committees for maintenance and by circular dated 03-10- 1996 it was made clear that the maintenance of the scheme shall be handed over to the adhoc committees pending registration of the societies under the A.P.MACS Act, 1995. Accordingly, the Gudimetla Lift Irrigation Scheme was handed over to an adhoc committee consisting of 8 members on 21-04-1997 and a service connection was issued in the name of the President of “Sri Sai Ethipothala Abhivrudhi Sangam, Gudimetla” which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide registration No.172/95 dated 29-09-1995. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Corporation that two separate applications were submitted before the 1st respondent for registration under the provisions of A.P.MACS Act from two diﬀerent groups. When a clarification was sought by the 1st respondent, it was informed that the installation of the Lift Irrigation Scheme was a single scheme to be maintained by a single unit with all beneﬁciaries and accordingly, the 1st respondent was requested to take appropriate decision. The allegations made by the petitioner that the Corporation is supporting its rival group has been denied and it is stated that the Scheme was handed over to the 5th respondent since the said Society was maintaining the Scheme from the date of its commission. At any rate, the said entrustment is only pending registration of the Society under the provisions of the A.P.MACS Act, 1995, and therefore the action of the 2nd respondent-Corporation does not suﬀer from any illegality and warrants no interference. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material on record, it is not in dispute that the 5th respondent society is a society initially registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Subsequently, the 5th respondent society has been registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 vide Registration No.391/2007, dated 12.9.2007. It is also clear from the record that the Lift Irrigation Scheme of Gudimetla after it was commissioned was entrusted to the 5th respondent society in the year 1997 and since then it is being maintained by the 5th respondent only. However, apparently there are two groups among the members of the 5th respondent society one led by the petitioner herein whereas the other group is led by one Vipparla Narasaiah. Accordingly, two diﬀerent applications were ﬁled on behalf of the 5th respondent society seeking registration under the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995. Admittedly, both the said applications are pending and it is for the 1st respondent to make necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to go into rival claims and express any opinion at this stage. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 2nd respondent Corporation committed an error in entrusting the maintenance of Lift Irrigation Scheme to the 5th respondent society vide proceedings dated 3.10.2007. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent amounts to adjudicating the rival claims between two groups which he is not competent to do. I do not ﬁnd any substance in the said contentions. It is true that the proceedings dated 3.10.2007 referred to the representation of the 5th respondent society under the Presidentship of Vipparla Narasaiah under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. However, it cannot be said that there was any adjudication of the rights claimed by the rival groups. The maintenance of lift irrigation scheme was entrusted to the 5th respondent by the Corporation only on the ground that the said society was maintaining the scheme from its commissioning and also keeping in view that it has been registered under A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. The said order has nothing to do with the dispute, if any, with regard to the constitution/election of the committee of the society. As per Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 the dispute if any arising among the committee or the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the aﬀairs of the society has to be resolved under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or by ﬁling an application in the District Court concerned. Hence, it is for the petitioner or any other aggrieved party to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law. The order of the 2nd respondent cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal merely because there is a dispute between the two groups of the members regarding constitution of the committee. It is also relevant to note that as on today no society has been registered under the provisions of the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995, under the name and style of Sri Sai Mutually Aided Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society Limited. Therefore the present writ petition ﬁled by the petitioner styling himself as chief promoter of Sri Sai Mutually Aided Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society Limited itself is misconceived. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed leaving it open to the 1st respondent to consider the applications pending on his ﬁle for registration of the 5th respondent society under the provisions of the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.09.2008 Klp/gbs