THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.27272 of 2011 Between: Pudi Paradesi Naidu PETITIONER And 1. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Visakhapatnam, and others. RESPONDENS ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Director of the 5th respondent- society in the election held on 28.03.2010. Prior to it, he was elected as Sarpanch of Mamidipalem Gram Panchayat in the election held on 6.08.2006, thus holding both the offices. Section 21A (1B) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 provides that no person is entitled to hold two offices at the same time. It provides that a person holding the office of Sarpanch, if elected as a member of a committee, shall be ceased to be a member thereof unless within 15 days from the date of his becoming a member, he ceases to be Sarpanch by resignation or otherwise. Thus since the petitioner, who was a Sarpanch and who was subsequently elected as director of the 5th respondent-society would have ceased to be the director since he did not resign as Sarpanch but he continued to hold both the offices. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Visakhapatnam, therefore initiated proceedings and after due notice to the petitioner and disqualified him from the office of Director by proceedings Rc.No.5/2011-D, dated 17.03.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner availed statutory remedy of appeal by filing O.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. He also filed a petition M.A.No.3 of 2011 seeking stay of the said order. The Tribunal by means of the impugned order declined to grant stay and dismissed the petition by orders dated 20.04.2011. Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Manohar learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri P.B. Vijayakumar appearing on behalf of respondents 2,3 and 5. Learned counsel Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao submits that the order disqualifying the petitioner is illegal since the procedure contemplated in Rule 24 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules was not followed. According to him no notice was served on the petitioner before disqualifying him. He further contends that the 1st respondent is not competent to pass the order in the absence of a resolution of the society in that behalf. It may be mentioned that these are the two contentions, which the petitioner has raised in the appeal also. In the light of the contentions raised, the Tribunal formulated the following points. a) Whether the applicant was given opportunity before passing orders by the 1st respondent by following principles of natural justice. b) Whether the petitioner/applicant is entitled for stay of order of 1st respondent passed under Section 21A (1B) of the Act. c) Whether the appeal is maintainable under Section 76 of the Act. On point No.1 the Tribunal noticed that a notice was sent to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due to his official address and the same satisfies the requirement as per the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. In so far as point No.2, as to whether the petitioner is entitled for stay, the Tribunal found that as on date the petitioner was not continuing as director of the 5th respondent- society and that he was still holding two posts. On point No.3, the Tribunal observed that maintainability of appeal may have to be gone into at the hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid contentions before this Court mainly contending that the procedure under Rule 24, which requires service of notice, has not been followed and that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction in passing the order. As noted above, the Tribunal specifically formulated the points for consideration and in the light of the undisputed fact that notice was sent by registered post, it rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner had notice of the impugned action. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not holding the office as director as on date when the Tribunal passed the order and that he is still holding the office of Sarpanch. In the light of the provisions of Section 21A (1B) of the Act which mandates that no person should hold two offices at the same time, the tentative finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be incorrect. In so far as the jurisdiction is concerned the question of competency of the 1st respondent being a question of law, the petitioner can always raise it in the appeal itself. On a consideration as above, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Interim order granted on 29.09.2011 in W.P.M.P.No.33664 of 2011 stands annulled and W.P.M.P.No.33664 of 2011 and W.V.M.P. No.4027 of 2011 are dismissed as unnecessary. In view of the urgency pleaded by the petitioner, the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25th November, 2011. Js.