HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.20716 of 2011 Date : 19-8-2011 Between: Ambati Anjaiah and others .. Petitioners And The Commissioner of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners: Ms.M. Vidyavathi Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries The Court made the following: ORDER: Show cause notice No.471/E/2011, dated 30-6-2011, issued by respondent No.2 to petitioner No.1-President of Fishermen Co-operative Society, Vemulakonda village, Voligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, is assailed by the Members of the Managing Committee of the said Society on the sole ground that each member of the Managing Committee is entitled to a separate notice before taking a decision on the proposed supersession of the Managing Committee. The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. I have heard Ms.M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries. In support of the petitioners’ plea that all of them are entitled to separate notices, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this court in Mahabubnagar Toddy Tappers Co-opoerative Society, Mahabubnagar Vs. Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar and others[1] wherein this court, inter alia, held at para-12 as under : “The action that may be taken under Section 34 of the Act is, against the managing committee. Each member of the managing committee is effected by such proceedings. Therefore, they are entitled to be served with notices, individually. In a given case, some of the members of the committee may be in a position to defend their case, and convince the authority concerned, to drop the proceedings. It is not uncommon that polarization exists, within a committee, and there may be vast difference of opinion. Therefore, it is mandatory that each member is put on notice in any action proposed under Section 34 of the Act. The authority cannot initiate or continue the proceedings, simply by serving show-cause notice on the Chairman or President of the Managing Committee. It is not in dispute that the show-cause notice dated 30-12-2004, was served only upon the President of the Society. Therefore, there is serious irregularity and lapse in the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent. In view of the violation of principles of natural justice, alternative remedy of appeal does not bar the Writ Petition.” The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries has not disputed the above position. In view of the above reproduced paragraph of the Judgment of this court, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.2 to issue separate notices to petitioners Nos.2 to 8. All the petitioners are entitled to submit their objections to such notices. Respondent No.2 shall consider the objections, if any filed by the petitioners and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 25-7-2011 is vacated and WPMP No.25157/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 19-8-2011 AM [1] 2005(2) ALD 34