IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 26867 of 2008 Between: The Fishermen Cooperative Society Rep. by its Secretary, Garige Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkatesh Khammam (Urban), Khammam Dist. R/o. Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Director of Fisheries Khammam. 2 Sri Reddiboina Venkateshwarlu S/o. Subbaiah R/o. Vilugumetta (V), Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the notice issued by the respondent No.1 vide No. 1234/A/08 dated 6-11-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, without authority and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-society, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent, and Smt M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the second respondent, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The proceedings impugned in this writ petition is the notice dated 06-11-2008 issued by the first respondent - Assistant Director of Fisheries whereby the petitioner-society was requested to conduct a general body meeting and pass a resolution to divide 40 members of the Velugumatla Fishermen society from the Khammam Fish Industries Cooperative society within 21 days and to submit a report. Under Section 15-A of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short – ‘the Act’), the Registrar, if he is of the opinion that it is necessary to divide and restrict or transfer the area of operation of a society for the purpose of ensuring economic viability of any or all the societies, or for avoiding overlapping or conflict of jurisdictions of societies in any area, or for securing the proper management of any society, or in the interest of the co-operative movement in general or for any other reason in the public interest, he may identify the viable and non-viable societies which may be retained or divided with consequential restriction of the area of operation or the transfer of such area as the case may be and may, by a notification to be published in the prescribed manner, specify the area of operation of each such society or societies to be retained or divided with any other society as indicated in the said notification and invite objections or suggestions from the societies or members concerned with the affairs of each such society within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification. Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that it is only after a notification is issued would the question of calling for objections arise and, since in the case on hand neither has the first respondent issued a notification nor called for any objections before directing the petitioner herein to pass a resolution dividing 40 members from their society to that of another, the impugned proceedings is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Ms.M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the second respondent, would state that it is only on the basis of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.20159 of 2008 dated 16-09-2008 that the first respondent had initiated action and, as this Court had directed that the entire exercise shall be completed within three months, any interference with the impugned notice dated 06-11-2008 would result in non-compliance with the orders passed earlier by this Court. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries would state that the object of issuing the said notice is to ensure that the second respondent was provided with a particular area of operation, that it was merely a notice calling for objections from the petitioner and, even if the last part of the notice is illegal, it would suffice if that part of the order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to submit its objections to the said notice. The direction of the first respondent, asking the petitioner to pass a resolution to divide the area of operation in favour of the second respondent, could only have been passed after the petitioners were put on notice and given an opportunity of being heard. Since, from the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order would fall foul of the conditions prescribed in Section 15-A of the Act. While the impugned order must be quashed, considering the fact that this Court had earlier directed the first respondent to take a decision within three months, ends of justice would be met if the last paragraph of the notice dated 06-11-2008 is set aside, the said proceedings is treated as a notice and the petitioner is permitted to file its objections thereto within a period of three weeks from today. On receipt of the petitioners objections, or after three weeks from today, (in case the petitioner fails to submit its objections), it is open to the first respondent to pass orders in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the petitioner is entitled to take all such objections as are available to it in law, including the compliance with the conditions prescribed in Section 15- A of the Act or of any Rules made under the provisions of the Act, and the same shall be considered by the first respondent while passing the final order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 11th December 2008 CVRK