IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8684 of 2006 Between: Fishermen Cooperative Society, Chamanapalli Village Karimnagar District, rep by President, Bojja Sathaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Secretary, Fisheries Department, at Secrtariat, Hyderabad 2 Commissioner of Fisheries Ex Officio Registrar of cooperativ Societies Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 Assistant Director of Fisheries, Karimnagar 4 Myakala Hanumaiah S/o Narsaiah R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 5 Mayakala hanumaiah S/o Narasaiah R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 6 Myakala Mallaiah S/o Narasaiah R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 7 Myakala Komaraiah S/o Rajalingam R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 8 Myakala Lachaiah S/o Rajalingam R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 9 Myakala Venkatesham S/o Malliah R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 10 Mayakala Venkatarajam S/o Rajalingam R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 11 Myakala Dharmaraju S/o Hanumaiah R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 12 Mayakalaya Ramulu S/o Hanumaiah R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and District 13 Myakala Rajalingam S/o narasaiah R/o Chamanapalli Village, Karimnagar Mandal, and 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 issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or Writs, order or Direction, to call for the records pertaining to order dt 8-3-2006 passed in CTA No. 39 of 2005 on the file of AP Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal, and quash the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction; Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order, dated 08-03-2006, passed in CTA No.39 of 2005 by the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal, Warangal and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is a Fishermen Co-operative Society (for short “the Society”). It appears that the Society wanted to expel ten of its members i.e., respondents 4 to 13, who were indulging in activities that are against the interests of the Society. Therefore, a notice of expulsion was given to them on 13-10-2000, and reply was submitted by them on 23-10-2000. Further, such similar notice was again given to respondents 4 to 13 on 03-11-2000 and reply was received by the Society on 20-11-2000. Ultimately, on 30-11-2000, intimation was given to all the members of the Society, about conducting of a general body meeting on 20-12-2000. In the said general body meeting, a unanimous resolution was passed expelling respondents 4 to 13 from the Society, subject to approval of respondent No.3-Assistant Director of Fisheries. Since respondent No.3 has not approved the resolution, the Society has filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.No.4615 of 2001, which was disposed of on 31-03-2001, directing respondent No.2-Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take a decision on the resolution passed by the Society on 20-12-2000. On 02-06-2001, respondent No.2 passed orders, stating that the resolution was not passed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder. Thereafter, a review petition was filed before respondent No.2, seeking review of order dated 02.06.2001. The said review petition was ordered on 08.01.2002, upholding the resolution passed by the Society on 20.12.2000. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 4 to 13 have filed a writ petition being W.P.No.2605 of 2002. The said writ petition was allowed and a direction was given to respondent No.2 to consider the matter afresh, since order dated 08.01.2002 passed in the review petition did not specify the reasons for upholding the resolution passed by the Society. Since the approval accorded by respondent No.2-Registrar was not a speaking order, therefore, he again passed a reasoned order on 27.08.2004. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 4 to 13 have filed another writ petition being W.P.No.17155 of 2004. However, the same was withdrawn and they have filed an appeal in CTA No.39 of 2005 before the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has allowed the appeal and set aside the approval granted by respondent No.2, to the resolution passed by the Society on 20.12.2000. Hence, this writ petition by the Society. Learned counsel for petitioner has strenuously contended that the Society has passed a valid resolution, expelling respondents 4 to 13. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, without applying its mind, has set aside the approval granted by respondent No.2-Registrar to the resolution passed by the Society. He contends that the Tribunal has not examined as to whether a general body meeting was held on 20.12.2000, and whether 3/4th of the members were present in the said meeting; that the Tribunal has simply assumed that the notice, dated nil, signed by the President of the Petitioner Society, informing the members about convening of a general body meeting on 20.12.2000, was received too late i.e. on 01.02.2001 by respondent No.3, who has also made an endorsement thereon to the effect that by the time the notice was received, the general body meeting was already over. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Tribunal, by placing reliance on all irrelevant factors, has allowed the appeal, setting aside the approval granted by respondent No.2 to the resolution of the Society, expelling respondents 4 to 13, and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 13 has contended that the so-called general body meeting was never held, and the said fact was also endorsed by respondent No.3, but, respondent No.2 has taken a wholly conflicting decision, upholding the resolution, and therefore, the said resolution passed by the Society on 20.12.2000 does not survive in the eye of law, in view of the fact that the person, who has approved the resolution, was not the Registrar at that point of time, and it is also not known as to whether 2/3rd members were present or 1/4th members were present in the general body meeting. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and justified and does not call for any interference. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal did not consider; firstly, the factors which led for expulsion of respondents 4 to 13 and it merely stated that the notice, dated nil, signed by the President of the Society informing the members about convening of the general body meeting of the Society on 20.12.2000, was received on 01.02.2001 by respondent No.3, who has also made an endorsement thereon to the effect that it was received late and that the general body meeting was already over. May be respondent No.3 has made such an endorsement on the notice of the general body meeting to be held on 20.12.2000, which was received by him on 01.02.2001, but that itself would not alter the situation. The general body meeting might have been held on 20.12.2000, wherein the resolution was passed, which was approved by respondent No.3, but there is some confusion as to the service of notice in advance on the members of the Society concerned. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, the questions whether the amended provisions of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, or unamended provisions of Section 23 are applicable as on the date of passing of the resolution, and whether respondent No.2 has an authority to approve such a resolution, are immaterial. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the entire issue, after hearing both the parties and also looking into the entire record relating to the resolution passed by the Society as well as the approval accorded by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, it is needless to mention that all the activities carried on by the Society shall be subject to further orders to be passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dated 10th February, 2009 vrn