IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13723 of 2008 Between: Jitender Reddy S/o.Venkat Reddy Urumadla(V) Chityal(M) Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Ghanta Dayakar Reddy S/o.Late Papi Reddy Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Ltd Mother Dairy Hayathnagar,Hyderbad 2 Nalgonda Ranga Reddy Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Ltd Mother Dairy, Hayathnagar,Hyderbad Rep.by its Managing Director. 3 The Managing Director Nalgonda Ranga Reddy Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Ltd Mother Dairy, Hayathnagar,Hyderabad .....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 one more particularly in the nature of a "Writ" of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the A.P Cooperative Appellate Tribunal made in I.A.No.581/2008 in O.P No.49/2008 dt.26-6-2008 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of A.P Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Act,1995 and set aside the same and consequently direct the that the functioning of the 1st respondent society must proceed un-hindered by the said O.P No.49/20080 on the file of the A.P Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel MR. P.RADHIVE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri E. Manohar, Senior Counsel Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri S. Niranjan Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13723 OF 2008 ORDER : The writ petitioner and the first respondent herein are the Directors of the 2n d respondent society which is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). The 3rd respondent herein - Managing Director of the 2nd respondent society issued a notice dated 18.06.2008 convening a meeting of the Bard of Directors on 27.06.2008 at 11.00 a.m. for confirmation of the resignation submitted by the Chairman of the society dated 18.06.2008 and for conducting election of new Chairman among the Directors. The said notice dated 18.06.2008 was challenged by the 1st respondent herein by preferring O.P.No.49 of 2008 before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 37(1) (2) of the Act. While alleging that the 3rd respondent herein i.e. Managing Director of the society has no authority to call for and conduct a meeting of the Board of Directors and that it is also impermissible to consider the acceptance of the resignation of the Chairman as well as the election of a new Chairman on the same day, the first respondent herein sought for a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent herein in convening the meeting of the Board of Directors on 27.06.2008 is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The 1st respondent herein also filed I.A.No.510 of 2008 seeking stay of proceedings scheduled on 27.06.2008 in pursuance of the notice dated 18.06.2008. The Tribunal having entertained O.P.No.49 of 2008, passed an order dated 26.06.2008 granting stay as sought by the first respondent herein and posted the matter to 07.07.2008 for appearance of the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 26.06.2008, the petitioner-one of the members of the Board of Directors, filed the present writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal below stayed the meeting proposed under the notice dated 18.6.2008 on two grounds – firstly, that the 1st respondent therein i.e., the Managing Director of the society was not competent to convene the meeting of the Board of Directors and secondly, that the meeting for confirmation of the resignation of the incumbent Chairman and the election of a new Chairman cannot be conducted on the same day. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while submitting that both the above said grounds on which the interim order was granted by the Tribunal were contrary to the bye-laws of the society, vehemently contended that there was absolutely no justifiable reason for the Tribunal below to stay the democratic election process. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that since the notice dated 18.6.2008 convening the meeting of the Board of Directors was issued as per the directions of the Chairman to confirm the resignation tendered by him, the same was in conformity with bye-law No.31.2. While pointing out that since the question of election of a new Chairman would arise only if the incumbent Chairman’s resignation is accepted, the learned Senior Counsel also contended that there is no bar as such for consideration of both the issues on the same day and therefore the election process ought not to have been intercepted on such flimsy grounds. On the other hand, Sri E. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that since the notice dated 18.06.2008 did not spell out that there was any such direction from the Chairman of the society for convening the meeting and even a copy of the resignation said to have been tendered by the Chairman was not enclosed, it cannot be said that the meeting under the notice dated 18.06.2008 was convened as per the directions of the Chairman and therefore the Tribunal below was justified in staying the proposed meeting. I have also heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and perused the material on record. On a plain reading of bye-law 31.2, it is clear that the Managing Director can convene a meeting of the Board of Directors only on the basis of the directions of the Chairman of the society. In the instant case, it is relevant to note that the notice dated 18.6.2008 did not refer to any direction by the Chairman of the Society to convene the meeting on 27.6.2008. A reading of the said notice gives an impression that it was issued by the Managing Director on his own and there was nothing to assume that it was issued as per the instructions of the Chairman to convene a meeting for acceptance of his resignation. May be for the said reason, the Tribunal below expressed that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner therein i.e., the 1st respondent herein. It is true that in this writ petition the petitioner pleaded that the notice dated 18.6.2008 was actually issued as per the instructions of the Chairman convening an emergency meeting for confirmation of the resignation tendered by him. However, whether there were any such instructions by the Chairman to convene the meeting on 27.6.2008 or not is a pure question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also relevant to note that as on today the matter is pending before the Tribunal and what is under challenge in this writ petition is only an ad interim order passed on 26.6.2008 pending O.P.No.49 of 2008. In the circumstances, it is always open to the respondents 2 and 3 herein, who are arrayed as respondents, and any other person like the writ petitioner who alleges that his interest is adversely affected to appear before the Tribunal and place all the relevant material to substantiate their case that the meeting under the notice dated 18.6.2008 was convened as per the instructions of the Chairman in conformity with bye-law 31.2. Since the issue relating to the validity of notice dated 18.6.2008 is seized by the Tribunal below, whose jurisdiction is not disputed before this Court, it is neither proper nor necessary for this Court to make further enquiry and express any opinion on merits. Hence, interference by this Court at this stage is not at all warranted. However, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, I deem it appropriate to advance the date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal below from 7.7.2008 to 1.7.2008. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that both parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 1.7.2008 and after hearing the preliminary submissions that may be made, the Tribunal shall fix a suitable date for hearing and dispose of the matter expeditiously following due process of law. Since the fact that the writ petitioner is also a Director of the 2nd respondent society is not in dispute, he is at liberty to appear before the Tribunal on 1.7.2008 in which event the petitioner herein shall also be impleaded as a party respondent to the proceedings before the Tribunal. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 27.06.2008 klp/gbs Note:- CC by 30.06.2008 (B/O) gbs