IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13941 of 2008 Between: Vachepally Subba Reddy S/o.Sri Venka Reddy PACS, Kotapadu, J.Panguluru Mandal Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Santhapeta, Ongole, Prakasam District 2.The District Registrar of Co-operative Societies Ongole, Prakasam District 3.Sri Bhavanam Brahma Reddy S/o.Sri Koti Reddy Kotapadu, J.Panguluru mandal, Prakasam District R/o.Kotapadu village via Muppavaram,Prakasam District 4.Sri Uppalamarthi nagendram S/o.Not known R/o.Kotapadu village, via Muppavaram,Prakasam District 5.Smt.Malapati Venkayamma W/o.Not knwon R/o.Kotapadu village, via Muppavaram,Prakasam District 6.Smt.Pulkandam Rajeshwari W/o.Venkateshwar Reddy R/o.Kotapadu village, via Muppavaram,Prakasam District 7.Bandaru Anjaiah s/o.Pedda Venkaiah R/o.Kondamuru village, Prakasam District 8.Sri Gallapudi China Anjaiah S/o.Subbaiah R/o.Kondamuru village, Prakasam District 9.Sri Naidu yedukondalu S/o.Bullaiah R/o.Director PACS Kotapadu R/o.Kondamuru village Prakasam District 10.Smt.Pabbasani Anjamma W/o.Nandi Reddy R/o.Kondamuru village, Prakasam 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 call for the records relating to issuance of notice dated 19.6.2008 from the 1st respondent herein by issuing an appropriate writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and declare the proceedings of 1st respondent dated 19.6.2008 in convening meeting of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same direct the respondent No.1 to decide the proceedings initiated against respondent No.3 dated 10.6.2008 before the date of no confidence motion i.e. 7.7.2008 direct the respondent No.1 to stall the impugned proceedings dated 19.6.2008 pending disposal of the dispute under section 21.A(1)(B) of APCS ACt to direct the respondent No.1 not to act upon No Confidence Motion Scheduled on 7.7.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.N.MOORTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.13941 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the President of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Kothapadu, challenging the impugned notice, dated 19.06.2008, issued by the first respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, under which, a meeting was convened on 07.07.2008 for consideration of No Confidence Motion against him under Section 34-A(3) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). It is primarily contended by the petitioner that since against the third respondent herein proceedings under Section 21-A(1B) of the Act are pending, he is ineligible to make a request for moving the motion and therefore, the first respondent ought not to have issued the impugned notice, at his instance. It is also contended that since the impugned notice was not served on all the members as required under law, no meeting could be held as proposed under the impugned notice. However, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, under instructions, submitted that the allegation as to non-service on all the members is incorrect. The learned Government Pleader also produced before this Court a copy of the impugned notice which was acknowledged by all 13 members. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the same. So far as the competence of the third respondent herein is concerned, even assuming that the third respondent ceased to be a Director under Section 21-A(1B) of the Act, it is to be noted that for convening a motion of no-confidence in the President or Vice-President under Section 34-A of the Act, a written notice of intention to make the motion, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Committee is sufficient. In the case on hand, admittedly there are 13 Directors and the impugned notice shows that out of the said 13 Directors, 08 Directors, including the third respondent, vide letter, dated 11.06.2008, requested to convene the meeting to move no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Thus it is clear that even if the third respondent is excluded, still there are 07 members which satisfies one-half of the total number of members of the Committee as prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 34-A of the Act. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned notice is not vitiated even on the alleged ground that the third respondent ceased to be a member of the Committee. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ 04.07.2008 VGB