THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.17741 of 2011 Between: 1. Dupati Yesuratnam, and 53 others. PETITIONERS And 1.The Commissioner of Fisheries, Guntur, Guntur District, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Ms. M. Vidyavathi Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3: G.P. for Fisheries Counsel for the respondent No.4: Sri B. Adinarayana Rao. Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri E. Manohar learned Senior Counsel instructed by Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The 4th Respondent is a Fishermen Cooperative Society registered under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners claim to be the members of the said society. They have filed this Writ Petition complaining inaction of the 1st Respondent-Commissioner for Fisheries, Guntur in finalizing the proceedings pursuant to Memo No.3864/12/2006, dated 20.07.2010 by which the 1st Respondent called for status report with reference to the representation made by the petitioners from the 2nd Respondent-Deputy Director of Fisheries, Guntur. 3. There has been a series of cases between the petitioners and the 4th respondent-society; one party or the other approaching this Court disputing the composition of the society for gaining control over fishing rights. There is a serious controversy as to whether the society consists of 426 members as claimed by the petitioners or only 223 as per the claim of the society. The petitioners claim that they were admitted as members on 15.04.1995 in accordance with the bye-laws. According to them the society is comprised of 426 members and these members were shown as voters earlier and participated in the elections conducted for the managing committee on 25.07.1997 and 09.07.2002. They seek to rely on an audit report for the year 2004- 2005 prepared by the cooperative department and a report dated 11.07.2007 of an enquiry said to have been conducted under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, (for short ‘the Act’) in support of their contention that the total membership of the society is 426. 4. The petitioners claim that all the 426 members participated in the fishing operations and derived benefits till 2005. They allege that the managing committee, in order to deprive the petitioners and others of their membership, concealed the membership register and opened a new register showing only 223 persons. At one point of time the State Government directed the Commissioner of Fisheries to submit a report. Accordingly a three-men committee was constituted vide proceedings dated 29.08.2006 and a report was submitted by it stating that the total membership was 426. An order dated 4.01.2007 passed by the State Government pursuant to the said report directing the Commissioner to initiate steps to issue identity cards to all 426 members, was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.1212 of 2007 dated 20.06.2007 holding that the State Government was not competent to pass the said order. Some of the excluded members approached this Court in W.P.Nos.4501 of 2009, 10799 of 2010 and 5448 of 2011 during the earlier fishing seasons seeking to participate in fishing operations. The orders passed by this Court therein from time to time were frustrated. 5. On the other hand, the 4th respondent-society has taken a rigid stand that the society is comprised of only 223 members and at no point of time new members were admitted after the registration of the society. The society seeks to fortify the said stand basing on a letter of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Guntur, bearing Rc.No.1347/A/05 dated 24.04.2006. According to it, the records of the society including the admission register were in the custody of a fishing trader, who did not handover the same to the society after the managing committee was elected on 23.07.2002 and therefore the society by its resolution dated 29.09.2005 resolved to open new records. The said resolution was approved by the Fisheries Development Officer, Vinukonda by letter dated 24.11.2005. The society also seeks to rely on some audit reports in support of their contentions. 6. Thus the issue as to the composition of the 4th respondent- society has been contentious and has remained unresolved for quite some time. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 10.07.2010 to the Minister of Fisheries seeking to intervene and to resolve the issue. Similarly, the President of the 4th respondent-society also submitted a similar representation dated 7.07.2010. Both the representations were sent to the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Fisheries, who in turn, issued Memo No.3864/12/2006, dated 20.07.2010 directing the 2nd Respondent- Deputy Director of Fisheries to submit a status report. On the said direction, Deputy Director caused an enquiry through the 3rd Respondent-Assistant Director of Fisheries. The Assistant Director of Fisheries conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 8.09.2010 to the Deputy Director of Fisheries-2nd respondent, who in turn forwarded the same to the Commissioner vide letter dated 9.09.2010. It is stated that even after the said report has been received, the 1st respondent-Commissioner has not taken any further action. The petitioners have therefore filed this writ petition seeking the following relief. “….. it is therefore prayed that his Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other order declaring the action of the Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyderabad in not finalizing the proceedings pursuant to Memo No.3864/12/2006, dated 20.07.2010 as bad, arbitrary and consequently, direct the Commissioner of Fisheries to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Memo No.3864/12/2006, dated 20.07.2010 and pass such other order or orders……. ” 8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri E. Manohar appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1st respondent-Commissioner is duty bound to consider the representation of the petitioners and resolve the issue in the interest of both the parties. The 1st respondent having called for the reports, particularly after the receipt of reports submitted by the concerned officers, there is no valid reason for the 1st respondent-Commissioner to remain passive. It is contended that the 1st respondent being a statutory authority, is under an obligation to take a decision in the matter within a reasonable time. 9. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent-society would oppose contending that the 1st respondent is not competent to deal with the representation. According to the learned counsel, the Deputy Director, who is functional Registrar, alone is competent and the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to deal with the issue. Therefore, he would contend that notwithstanding the receipt of reports, there is no obligation on the part of the 1st respondent to decide the matter. 10. I am unable to accept the said objection. Section 2(n) of the Act defines ‘Registrar’ as the Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointed under Section 3(1) and includes any other person on whom any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred. Section 3 of the Act provides that there shall be a Registrar of Cooperative Societies for the State appointed by the State Government and as many other persons as it think fit for the purpose of this Act. The State Government, in exercise of the said powers issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1982, F & A (Fisheries), dated 15.06.1966 conferring all the powers of Registrar under the Act except those specified in Sections 50, 84 to 115 on the Director of Fisheries. Thus by virtue of the said orders, the 1st respondent is competent to deal with the issue on hand. 11. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent-society would however submit that even if it is assumed that the 1st respondent is competent to decide the issue, he is bound to follow the procedure provided in Section 61 of the Act read with Rule 49 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules 1964. According to the learned counsel, the dispute as presented by the petitioners cannot be decided without following the due procedure laid down in the said provisions. 12. I am not inclined to express any opinion on this aspect since at this stage it is premature to assume that the 1st respondent would decide the matter without following the procedure contemplated by law. 13. As mentioned above, the parties have been litigating on a small issue as to the composition of the society. All that it is required is to decide as to whether the society consists of 426 members or 223 only. Due to the infighting, fish has remained in the tank for a considerable period, which is in nobody’s interest. Indisputably, the 1st respondent has received reports called for by him. There does not appear to be any valid reason for inaction to decide the matter even after considerable time has elapsed. 14. For the reasons as above, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-Commissioner to conduct enquiry and finalize the proceedings pursuant to the Memo No.3864/12/2006, dated 20.07.2010 by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 13th July, 2011. Js.