THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2009 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed questioning the orders dated 10-12-2008 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No.24266 of 2008 wherein it was observed that the cessation of respondents 4 to 15 is not automatic but would depend upon the action being taken in this regard by the competent authority after putting them on notice and after giving them an opportunity of being heard and till such a declaration is made, the members of the Managing Committee continue to hold office, in which event, the motion of no confidence made by one half of the members of the managing committee against the appellant-petitioner cannot be said to be void and liberty was granted to the appellant-petitioner to avail such other remedies as are available to him in law with regards cessation of office of respondents 4 to 15 and further held that there are no grounds to interfere with the no confidence motion moved against him since the procedural requirements of section 34-A of the Act have been satisfied in this regard. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that the appellant herein is the President of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short ‘PACS’) of Dharoor and discharging his duties as per the rules and regulations. The respondents 4 to 15, are the Executive Members of the PACS, Dharoor had filed an application on 08-10-2008 before the second respondent requiring the second respondent to convene the meeting for consideration of want of confidence against the President of the Society under section 34-A (2) of AP Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The Respondent No.2 on the same day issued notice in Proceedings No.568/2008-C dated 08-10-2008 convening the meeting on 06-11-2008 at 12:00 noon for consideration of said no confidence motion. It is stated that all the respondents are in collusion with each other and deliberately initiated the said proceedings. From the beginning the respondents are intentionally not co-operating with the appellant due to change of political equations with vested interest. The appellant immediately filed WP.No.24266 of 2008 questioning the said impugned notice on the ground that as the meeting of General Body of PACS was not held within six months from the last meeting dated 31-3-2008, the Managing Committee ceases to exist and the respondents 4 to 15 ceases to be the members of the Managing Committee and thus cannot invoke the power of moving any motion against the appellant and further the relevant rule was omitted as per GO.Ms.No.37 (Agricultural Co-operation-IV) dated 28-1-2002 and sought to quash the same. The respondents however contended that after 31-3-2008 another General Body Meeting held on 30-9-2008, as such, the committee did not cease to exist and the respondents 4 to 15 have right to move the no confidence. On filing of said writ petition, interim orders were passed on 15-11-2008 ordering the proposed meeting may go on but the results of no confidence motion shall not be given effect to for a period of three weeks, which was subsequently extended for two more weeks. The learned single Judge subsequently heard the writ petition and expressed doubt with regard to holding of General Body on 30-9-2008, as alleged by the respondents, however, observed that unless an enquiry about cessession of holding of office the members is held and decided they continue to hold the office and entitled to move the no confidence and allowed the appellant to avail such of the remedies available under the Act. 3. Questioning the orders dated 10-12-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.NO.24266 of 2008, the present writ appeal is filed on the ground that the learned single Judge having held that there is any amount of suspicion about holding of alleged general body meeting on 30-9-2008 as alleged by the respondents ought not to have dismissed the writ petition. Further in para 4 of the counter, it is alleged that they held general body meeting but curiously they did not gave any date on which the alleged general body was conducted nor any record is filed to substantiate that the general body meeting was in fact held on 30-9-2008. Except making bald statement of holding general body meeting on 30-9- 2008, no other record is produced before the learned single Judge in proof of the said contentions. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge missed to observe the fact that the contentions of the respondents that they opened a second minutes book, as the first minutes book was with the President was found to be false, as both minutes books were submitted by the respondent before the learned single Judge on its direction. Further it is contended that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to convene the meeting of no confidence as sought by the Managing Committee Members, unless the core issue about its existence is not decided. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Govt.Pleader for Co-operation. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for Co-operation and on perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, it appears that the learned single Judge has granted liberty to the appellant only to avail such other remedies as are available to him in law with regard to cessation of office of respondents 4 to 15 and the learned single Judge has rightly observed that the no confidence motion moved against the appellant is in accordance with Section 34-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ appeal does not call for any interference. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant sought liberty of this Court to file the statutory appeal before the authorities concerned within a period of four weeks. 7. Liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to file the statutory appeal before the authorities concerned, as and when such statutory appeal is filed, the authorities concerned are directed to dispose of the writ appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such appeal. 8. With the above observation, the writ appeal is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admision. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI. ___________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 20-1-2009. I s L NB: Furnish CC in two days. B/o. IsL.