THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13195 OF 2009 DATED JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN Sri Jala Lakshmi Agnikulakshatriya Boatsmen Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Fisheries, Matsra Bhavan, Shanthi Nagar, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad and others. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13195 OF 2009 O R D E R The petitioner Fishermen Co-operative Society was registered on 10.10.1978 under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1964’) with an area of operation covering seven villages. By the impugned proceeding dated 23.06.2009, the Assistant Director of Fisheries-cum-Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, the second respondent, passed orders under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964 amending the bye-laws of the petitioner society reducing its area of operation by deleting Avidi Village, one of the seven villages which fell within its area of operation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner society filed the present case and this Court, by order dated 03.07.2009, directed status quo obtaining as on that day to be maintained. The fourth respondent Fishermen Co-operative Society, which was sough to be allotted Avidi Village upon its exclusion from the area of operation of the petitioner society, filed W.V.M.P.No.2083 of 2009 to vacate the said order. With the consent of the learned counsel, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner society originally had the following seven villages within its area of operation: 1) Bandaru Lanka 2) Nandampudi 3) Gunnepalli 4) Machavaram 5) Esukapudi 6) Ambajipeta 7) Avidi While so, the second respondent under proceeding dated 01.09.2003 sought to exclude Avidi Village from the area of operation of the petitioner society in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 of the Act of 1964. Challenging the same, the petitioner society filed Writ Petition No.23783 of 2003 before this Court. However, the amendment of the petitioner society’s bye-law sought to be effected under the proceeding dated 01.09.2003 was cancelled by the second respondent under his subsequent proceeding dated 03.12.2003. In view of this development, Writ Petition No.23783 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.01.2004. Thereafter, under notice dated 27.10.2004 issued under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964, the second respondent called upon the petitioner society to conduct a General Body meeting within thirty days and pass a resolution amending its bye-laws by deleting Avidi Village from its area of operation. The petitioner society submitted its reply to this notice on 26.11.2004 stating that it was not agreeable to the amendment and requesting withdrawal of the notice issued under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964. After a long lapse of over four years, the second respondent again issued a notice dated 16.02.2009 under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964 calling upon the petitioner society to pass a resolution excluding Avidi Village from its area of operation and communicate the same within fifteen days. The petitioner society submitted its reply dated 02.04.2009 stating that its General Body in the meeting held on 14.03.2009 rejected the proposed amendment of its bye-laws. However, the second respondent, having called for an enquiry report from the Fisheries Development Officer, Katrenikona, and the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Kothapet, considered their report dated 26.05.2008, recommending that Avidi Village be excluded from the area of operation of the petitioner society and allotted to the fourth respondent society, and passed the impugned proceeding under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964 registering the amendment of the petitioner society’s bye-laws excluding Avidi Village from its area of operation. The issue before this Court is whether this exercise by the second respondent is in keeping with the provisions of the Act of 1964. It is pertinent to note that Section 15-A of the Act of 1964 specifically deals with the power of the Registrar to restrict or transfer the area of operation of a society. This power is to be exercised by the Registrar in public interest by identifying the viable and non-viable societies which may be retained or divided with consequential restriction of the area of operation or the transfer of such area. This exercise has to be effected by publishing a notification in the prescribed manner specifying the area of operation of each such society and inviting objections or suggestions from the societies or any members, depositors, creditors, employees or other persons concerned with the affairs of each such society. After receiving and considering the suggestions and objections aforestated, the Registrar is required to make such modification to the proposal as he may deem fit, make an order and publish it in the prescribed manner. Upon the making of such an order, the area added to the area of operation of the society shall be deemed to have been transferred to such society to which it is added. Section 16 of the Act of 1964, on the other hand, deals with the general power of the Registrar to register amendments of the bye-laws of a society, be it at its own instigation or upon his opinion that such amendment is necessary in the interest of such society or of the co- operative movement. This power of the Registrar to enforce an amendment of the bye-laws upon the society is traceable to Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964. However, it is trite that in the event the bye- law sought to be amended by the Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964 results in restriction or transfer of the area of operation of a society, the Registrar must necessarily follow the procedure prescribed under Section 15-A of the Act of 1964. Once the statute prescribes the procedure to be followed for doing a particular thing, it must be necessarily done in accordance with such procedure or not at all [STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/s. JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL[1]]. In the present case, there is no indication of the prescribed procedure having been followed. Though the petitioner society specifically raised a ground in this regard in its affidavit in ‘Ground (c)’, the second respondent did not choose to advert to this aspect in his counter affidavit. The Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries was therefore asked to verify as to whether the procedure under Section 15-A of the Act of 1964 was followed and if so, to produce a copy of the order passed by the second respondent under Section 15-A(2) of the Act of 1964. Having enquired into the matter, the learned Assistant Government Pleader stated on instructions that the second respondent did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 15-A of the Act of 1964. In that view of the matter, the impugned proceeding dated 23.06.2009 issued by the second respondent altering the area of operation of the petitioner society by simply forcing upon it an amendment of its bye-laws under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964 is unsustainable being in clear violation of the prescribed procedure under Section 15-A thereof. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 23.06.2009 issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries-cum-Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies, Amalapuram, East Godavari. In the light of this final order, no further orders are required in the miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, which are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ JUNE, 2011. PGS [1] (2003) 9 SCC 731