THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6223 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a member of M/s.Jai Bharat Mutually Aided Cooperative Credit Society, Shivam Road, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, respondent No.2 herein. He approached the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, respondent No.1 herein, by filing O.P.No.53 of 2008 with a prayer to declare the action of the Society in filing false returns under Section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 without conducting and completing Annual General Meeting within six months from the closure of accounts as an offence and impose necessary penalties. It was stated that though an adjourned Annual General Meeting was held on 29.09.2007, it did not take place on account of walking out of majority of the members including the petitioner. According to him, no meeting as such can be said to have taken place and that the returns submitted by the society before the District Cooperative Officer amounts to furnishing of false information and it is punishable under relevant provisions of law. The Tribunal dismissed the O.P. through its order, dated 02.12.2009. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri Gowri Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The Society appears to be having a very small number of members. A meeting of the General Body was proposed to be held on 29.09.2007. Six members including the petitioner attended and one by name Sri B.S.R.Prasad sought leave for absence. The petitioner subscribed his signature in proof of his attendance. It appears that there was some disagreement among the members as regards certain items of Agenda. The minutes of the meeting were drawn in detail, so much so, the views expressed by various members on different issues were also mentioned. In the proforma, it is ultimately mentioned that six members were present in the meeting and all of them voted in favour of the Minutes. However, according to the petitioner, no meeting as such can be said to have taken place and the report furnished to the District Cooperative Officer is incorrect. Therefore, he wanted penalties to be imposed for furnishing false information. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were filed. On behalf of the society, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were filed. The Tribunal framed three issues and all of them, namely (1) Whether R1 society has not conduced the annual general body meeting as contemplated; (2) Whether R1/society filed false returns to the department; and (3) Whether the petition in the present form is not maintainable, were answered against the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The reason is that, the very basic allegation made by the petitioner that no meeting as such was held on 29.09.2007, is not correct. From the extract of the Minutes book filed by the petitioner himself, it is evident that the petitioner and five other members have signed in token of their attending the meeting. Even assuming that the meeting did not proceed on the expected lines, it cannot be said that it was not conducted at all. Further, there is nothing on record to show that any independent voting through ballots was held, so that it can be said that the resolution, which was put to vote, was defeated. At any rate, respondent No.2 is a purely private organization having limited membership and if those limited members cannot adjust their views among themselves, there is hardly anything, which others can do about it. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 22.04.2010. kdl