IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16885 of 2007 Between: The Perchalra Quarry Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd repby its President shaik, Abdullah s/o Pedda Mastan, R/o Percharla Village, Medikonduru Mndal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh repby its Divisional Co- operative Officer (FAC) Co-operation Department, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Asst. Director ofMines & Geology H. No. 5-76./22, 4th Lane 2nd Cross Roads, Padaripuram, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Dy. Director of Mines & Geology, H. No.1/1, Ramanna Pet 1st lane, Koritepadu, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The District Collector Guntur, Guntur District. 5 Gandikota Shaik Tangella, S/o Silar Saheb R/o Perecharla Village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District. .....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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in the Recommendation made by the First Respondent to the Second Respondent, which is inﬂuenced by the letter issued by the Fourth Respondent, which amounts to colourable Exercise of power by the respondents in recommending the Renewal of Lease of the ﬁfth Respondent, who is incompetent to apply for it in his Capacity of Director to the Co- operative Society, In spite of the Resolution of the General Body Meeting of the Co-operative Society to not to opt for Renewal of License for Quarrying the Metal Stone, is illegal, unjust and violative of fundamental rights enshrined by Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to not to consider the Renewal application of the fifth respondent dated 26-6-2007 for Quarry Lease in Sy. No. 155/A, China Palakaluru Village, Guntur District, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. S.SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16885 OF 2007 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by a Cooperative Society by name The Perecherla Quarry Workers Labour Contract Co- Operative Society Limited,(herein after referred to as “Society”) represented by its President, Shaik Abdulla, seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer, Guntur in recommending renewal of mining lease to quarry metal stone in favour of the Society on an application made by the 5th respondent herein in the name of the Society as arbitrary and illegal. A further direction to the respondents 2 and 3 is also sought not to consider the said renewal application dated 26.6.2007 made by the 5th respondent. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under: The Perecharla Quarry Workers Labour Contract Co- operative Society Limited, is a society registered under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. It was granted a mining lease to quarry metal stone in Sy.No.155/A, Plot Nos.15 & 16 of Chinapalakalakuru Village, Guntur District and as per the terms of lease, the 1st renewal was granted for a period of 10 years from 1997 to 2007 vide proceedings of the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, dated 6.11.1997. Accordingly, the lease deed was executed on 28.3.1998 in favour of the society represented by its President Shaik Abdulla. While the lease period was coming to an end, the General Body of the society met on 2.9.2006 and passed a resolution empowering the President and the committee to take a decision with regard to further renewal of lease. Pursuant thereto, the Managing Committee met on 12.12.2006 and it was decided not to apply for renewal of quarry lease. However, a renewal application dated 4.6.2007 was ﬁled seeking renewal. Alleging that the signatures of the President on the said application were obtained by coercion, the President Shaik Abdulla made another application on 22.6.2007 withdrawing the earlier application dated 4.6.2007. Thereafter, another application dated 26.6.2007 was ﬁled by the 5th respondent herein claiming to be on behalf of the society, seeking renewal of the quarry lease. The Divisional Co- operative Oﬃcer, Guntur, vide his letter dated 27.6.2007 conﬁrmed the genuineness of the later application dated 26.6.2007 ﬁled through the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, considered the application dated 26.6.2007 and recommended for grant of quarry lease in favour of the society for a period of 10 years. Hence the present writ petition. The 1st respondent - Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer, Co- operation Department, ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating that the management of the petitioner society failed to execute the works properly resulting in loss to the society. Aggrieved by the same, some of the members of the petitioner society raised an election dispute vide O.A.No.39 of 2006 before the A.P. Co- operative tribunal, Vijayawada on 10.1.2006. However, the said petition was dismissed on 16.11.2006 on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Thus, the aﬀairs of the society were being managed by one Shaik Abdullah and Abdul Ghani, who are the President and Secretary respectively. While so, the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer, Sattenapalli, after due enquiry, submitted a report dated 19.9.2006 stating that the President and Secretary of the Society managed to resolve in the Managing Committee meeting dated 12.12.2006 not to ﬁle any application for renewal of the lease which is detrimental to the interest of the members and that the President and Secretary appear to have colluded with each other and got ﬁled applications for grant of lease by some third parties, who are no other than their benamis. It was also reported that the President and Secretary were hand-in-glove with each other and intentionally avoided to ﬁle renewal applications within the stipulated period on behalf of the society. That apart, 243 members of the society made a requisition to the Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer requesting to direct the President of the Society to convene the General Body Meeting under Section 32 (2) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act under the supervision of the Departmental Oﬃcer. Accordingly, the President of the Society was addressed a letter dated 27.5.2006 to convene the General Body Meeting. However, the President refused to do so. In the circumstances, the Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer, vide proceedings dated 9.8.2006 issued a statutory direction under Section.32 (2) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act to the President and other Managing Committee members to convene the General Body Meeting. Accordingly, though a General Body Meeting was convened on 10.9.2006, the proceedings were disrupted by some of the expelled members and the situation was violent. The same was reported by the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer, Sattenapalli through his report dated 19.9.2006. The result of the said meeting dated 10.9.2006 was not known. Since the genuine members were put to troubles and the society incurred losses, the 1st respondent by letter dated 31.3.2007 directed the President to appear before the authorities to get the quarry lease renewed. However, the President failed to do so. The Secretary of the society also colluded with the President and both of them managed to resolve in the Managing Committee meeting dated 12.12.2006 not to ﬁle any application for renewal in favour of the society which is contrary to the existence of the society and detrimental to the interest of 320 members, who depended on the quarry lease for their livelihood. Having realized the same, the members of the society pressurized the President of the society to ﬁle an application within the stipulated period. Though such application was ﬁled on 4.6.2007, he absconded from the head-quarters and addressed a letter dated 22.6.2007 to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, through courier service withdrawing the renewal application and requesting to cancel the same. As a matter of fact, by that time, the Divisional Co- operative Oﬃcer, Guntur, after conducting a meeting of the society on 7.6.2007 under the Chairmanship of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Guntur, found that the President and Secretary had willfully neglected ﬁling of renewal application within the stipulated period and accordingly by letter dated.08.06.2007 requested the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, to consider the renewal application of the society dated 4.6.2007. Apart from the President’s letter dated 22.6.2007 withdrawing the renewal application, the Secretary of the society was reported to have submitted his resignation to the post of Secretary. In the circumstances, it was concluded that the resolution passed by the managing committee on 12.12.2006 not to ﬁle any renewal application was of no value and the Members of the society themselves conducted a General Body Meeting on 26.6.2007. Since the president was not available in the head-quarters keeping in view the larger interest of the society it was resolved by the general body to authorize the 5th respondent herein to ﬁle an application for renewal of the lease and the 1st respondent was requested to recommend the renewal in favour of the society. Accordingly, the 5th respondent ﬁled an application dated 26.6.2007 for renewal on behalf of the society. Having received the same the 2nd respondent sought a clariﬁcation whether the members themselves can ﬁle applications for quarry lease individually. The Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer by his letter dated 7.7.2007 informed the actual facts and requested the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the society for renewal so as to do justice to the poor members of the society stating that the President and Secretary of the society were acting contrary to the interest of the members of the society. On behalf of the respondents 2, 3 & 4, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology ﬁled a separate counter-aﬃdavit on the same lines and further explaining that it came to their notice that the President of the Society by name Shaik Abdullah was far away from the head-quarters and the Secretary Abdul Ghani had resigned to the oﬃce and therefore the members of the society in the General Body Meeting held on 26.6.2007 resolved to authorize the 5th respondent - Member of the Managing Committee to ﬁle the quarry lease application and authorizing him to sign on the application. It was also resolved by the General Body that the action of the President in withdrawing the 2nd renewal application dated 23.6.2007 was not in the interest of the society but it was only to see that the lease was granted to one of his benamis who made applications for grant of lease. Accordingly, the recommendations of the Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer were called for and on the basis of the recommendations the proposals were submitted to the Government. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Sec.9 of the Act provides that the registration of a society under the Act renders such society a body corporate by the name under which it is registered and that the society is entitled to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to enter into contracts on its behalf, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all other things necessary for the purpose for which it was constituted. As per Sec.2(b) of the Act the management of the aﬀairs of the society is entrusted to the committee which is the governing body of the society by whatever name called. Sec.31 of the Act provides that the general body of the society shall constitute a committee in accordance with the bye-laws and entrust the management of the aﬀairs of the society to such committee. Sec.31 (1) (b) read with Rule.22-A of the A.P Cooperative Society Rules,1964 further prescribed the number of members constituting the committees of the societies notified. Sec.31-A specified the powers and functions of the committee and Sec.32 provides that the committee has to call for general meetings of the society as mentioned there under. On a combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted to the committee. In the case on hand, the speciﬁc case of the respondents is that the President and Secretary of the Society who were hand-in-glove with each other did not ﬁle renewal application within the speciﬁed period deliberately. The report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Oﬃcer, Sattenapalli and the Divisional Cooperative Oﬃcer, Guntur after due enquiry into the aﬀairs of the society revealed that the President and Secretary of the society were not acting in the interest of the society but on the other hand they were taking steps to see that the mining lease was granted to one of their benamis who also made applications for grant of lease. The material on record also shows that the President and Secretary managed to resolve in the meeting of the managing committee dated.12-12- 2006 not to ﬁle any application for renewal in favour of the society, which was contrary to the very existence of the society. Ultimately the President of the society left the head-quarters and the Secretary resigned to his office. In the circumstances the general body of the society met on 26-06-2007 and passed a resolution authorizing the 5th respondent to submit a quarry lease application on behalf of the society since all the members of the society are depending on the quarry lease for their livelihood. It is relevant to note that the 5th respondent is also one of the members of the managing committee, which is the governing body of the society. Moreover, as per Sec.30 of the Act the ultimate authority of the society shall vest in the general body. Admittedly the general body of the society consisting of 243 members met on 26-06-2007 and while resolving to make an application for renewal on behalf of the society, authorized the 5th respondent to make such an application. The genuineness of the said resolution passed by the general body on 26-6-2007 was conﬁrmed by the 1st respondent-Divisional Cooperative Oﬃcer who is the competent authority under the Act who also recommended for grant of renewal of lease in favour of the society. In the circumstances the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent was not competent to ﬁle the application for renewal of lease on behalf of the society is without any substance. As noticed above, the 5th respondent was authorized by the general body of the society to make such an application. Hence the 2nd respondent cannot be held to have committed an error in considering the application ﬁled by the 5th respondent and granting renewal of lease in favour of the society. Since admittedly the general body consisting of 243 members in its meeting held on 26.6.2007 resolved to make an application for renewal on behalf of the society and authorized the 5th respondent to make such an application, the present writ petition ﬁled by the President in the name of the society with a prayer which, on the face of it, is against the interest of the society is misconceived. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.10.2008 gbs