IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 636 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/04/2009 in WP NO : 26411 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 R. Seetha Ramaiah, S/o. Narayya, President of the Respondent Society, R/o. Munagapadu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Ch. Usha Rani, W/o. Sreenivasa Rao, Vice President of the Respondent Society, R/o. Velagaleru Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 3 Ch. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Ramakotaiah, Director of the Respondent Society, R/o. Cheruvu Madhavaram Society, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Byravarapu Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Pakeeraiah, Director of the Respondent Society, R/o. Munagapadu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 5 Bathula Ramulamma, W/o. Govindu, Director of the Respondent Society, R/o. Munagapadu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 6 Mandala Jayaraju, S/o. Issaq, Director of the Respondent Society, R/o. Munagapadu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 7 B. Gopya, S/o. Bhavasingh, Director of the Respondent Society, R/o. Chervu Madhavaram Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 8 Ballem Pulla Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao Director of the Respondent Society, R/o. Gaddamarugu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 9 Bandla Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Appaiah, Director of the Respondent Society, R/o. Chervu Madhavaram Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 10 Yannam Seethamireddy, S/o. Chinna Veerareddy, Director of the Respondent Society, R/o. Munagapadu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, AMC Complex, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2. 2 The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Cheruvu Madhavaram, Rep. by its Secretary, Cheruvu Madhavaram, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 3 The General Manager, The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellanta: MR.Y.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 3rd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 636 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meena Kumari ) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 01-4-2009 passed in WPMP.No.34574 of 2008 in WP.No.26411 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge refused to suspend the operation of the impugned order passed by the first respondent – Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vijayawada in his Proceedings Rc.No.1610/2008/E, dated 28-11-2008 on the ground that unless the main writ petition itself is disposed of no relief can be granted. 2. The main writ petition was filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in superseding the Managing Committee of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Cheruvu Madhavaram as per the impugned order of the first respondent in RC.No.1610/2008/E, dated 28-11-2008 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to mandatory provisions of the AP Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and without giving opportunity and set aside the same and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. The facts of the case are that the first appellant is the President of the Respondent-Society and other appellants are the members of the Managing Committee of the Respondent Society. It is stated that the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 10-11-2008 requiring all the appellants to make a representation within a week as to why they should not be superseded under section 34 (1) of the AP Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Thereupon the appellants filed a memo through their counsel, dated 21-11-2008 requesting the first respondent to furnish a copy of the Enquiry Report under section 51 of the AP Co-operative Societies Act said to have been submitted, a copy of the Proceedings of the Joint Registrar-District Co-operative Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam in RC.No.3434/2008-C and a copy of the petition made against the President of the Society, alleging financial irregularities so as to make representation, since the Enquiry Officer was appointed under section 51 of the Act being administrative in nature and without giving opportunity to the appellants-petitioners herein. The said memo of the appellants dated 21-11-2008 was acknowledged by the first respondent but did not respond to the request of the appellants-petitioners instead passed the impugned order, superseding the entire Managing Committee of the Respondent- society, which is arbitrary, illegal and needs to be set aside. The supersession of the Managing Committee is contrary to section 34 (1) of the Act. It is stated that CKCC loans said to have been renewed in all the three cases mentioned in the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 28-11-2008 have been repaid by the vendee of the mortgaged lands of the said loanees; i.e., Smt.Ch.Durgamma, Sri Bhukya Bhavya, Sri ch.Rosaiah and Sri L.Subba Rao. The receipt of the loan amounts were duly accounted for in the records of the respondent-society which are seized by the Enquiry Officer under section 51 of the Act. The aforesaid loanees/members of the Respondent-Society have sold their mortgaged lands in favour of one Sri V.Satish Babu subject to the condition of repayment of the outstanding debts to the society. Accordingly, the said vendee sought for renewal of the said loans and repaid the entire debt amount, which is not illegality or irregularity and no financial loss to the society and cannot be a ground for supersession under section 34 (1) of the Act. It is further stated that as far as the waiver of the debt of the first appellant and two other members of the Managing Committee is concerned, it is perfectly valid and in accordance with the Debt Relief and Debt Waiver Scheme 2008 introduced by the Government of India and even other wise that cannot be a valid ground for the impugned action of supersession and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also stated that the first respondent without consulting with its financing bank passed the impugned order and that the ingredients required to be satisfied for exercising powers under section 34 (1) of the Act are not available and the reasons mentioned in the impugned order cannot satisfy requirement under section 34 (1) of the Act for passing the impugned order and hence invoking jurisdiction under section 34 (1) of the Act is arbitrary, invalid and liable to be set aside. 4. Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order passed by the first respondent disqualifying the appellants is without consulting its financing bank and by just placing the report before the General Body of the third respondent-bank and in turn the General Body of the third respondent- bank took a decision by way of resolution and expressed its decision. 5. With the consent of both the parties, the writ appeal and writ petition have taken up for hearing. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, it appears that the issue involved in the main writ petition has to be gone into by way of an alternative remedy available under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Under the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate that as against the impugned order passed by the first respondent, an appeal lies before the A.P. Co- operative Tribunal, Vijayawada and the appellants therefore can pursue the alternative remedy available to them under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the impugned order passed by the first respondent stands revived. 7. With the above observation, the writ appeal and writ petition are not maintainable at this stage and the same are accordingly dismissed on the ground that the appellants have approached this court without exhausting the effective alternative remedy of appeal before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 02-6-2009. I s L NB: Furnish CC in two days. B/o. I s L