IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD 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.40 OF 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 21403 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M.Bikshapathi, S/o Narsimhulu, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 K.Durgaiah, S/o Pentaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 3 G.Krishnaiah, S/o Pochaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 4 G.Sankaraiah, S/o Pochaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 5 K.Sataiah, S/o Muthaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 6 G.Lakshminarayana, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 7 G.Sreenivas, S/o Satyanarayana, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 8 M.Kishan, S/o Lachaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 9 M.Subashchander, S/o Lakshmaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 10 M.Subash, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 11 K.Narsimhulu, S/o Lakshmaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 12 M.Kishan, S/o Lakshmaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 13 M.Sailu, S/o Penaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 14 G.Pentaiah, S/o Lakshmaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 15 B.Ashok, S/o Pentaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 16 M.Narsimhulu, S/o Lakshmaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 17 G.Kishan, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 18 U.Yadaiah, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 19 K.P. Satyanarayana, S/o Penaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 20 K.Durgaiah, S/o Muttaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 21 K.M.Satyanarayana, S/o Malaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 22 K.Kishan, S/o Malaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 23 K.Ramdas, S/o Ramaswamy, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 24 K.Narsimhulu, S/o Gangaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 25 A.Rajendar, S/o Venkaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 26 K.Prasad, S/o Pentaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 27 M.Sreenivas, S/o Pandari, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 28 K.Machendar, S/o Pentaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 29 C.H.Radhakrishna, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 30 M.Vittal, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 31 G.Vittal, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 32 G.Narsimhulu, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 33 M.Sattaiah, S/o Durgaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 34 C.H.Narsimhulu, S/o Usaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 35 G.Puranderraj, S/o Durgaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 36 M.Narshimhulu, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 37 M.Durgaiah, S/o Rajaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 38 K.Krishna, S/o Pentaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 39 K.Suresh Kumar, S/o Durgaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 40 G.Gopal, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 41 K.Chandrabhushan, S/o Pentaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 42 K.Rajendar, S/o Gangaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 43 M.kistaiah, S/o Balaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. 44 M.Raju, S/o Bheemaiah, R/o Sangareddy, Medak District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Commissioner of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Gaganvihar, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Zone IV, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Medak District. 4 Fisherman Coopertive Society, Rep By its President, Sangareddy, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants : MS.M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.40 OF 2002 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the validity and legality of the order dated 04.01.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.21403 of 2001. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein. The Writ Petition was filed questioning the orders dated 16.04.2001 passed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Medak District, in expelling the appellants/petitioners from their membership of Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, Sangareddy, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Fisheries, Hyderabad, by order dated 29.09.2001. The brief facts of the case are as follows: In the year 1959, the appellants and others formed a Fishermen Cooperative Society, fourth respondent herein, which was registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Some of the members of the said Society made a representation to the third respondent for deletion of certain members from the rolls of the society alleging that they are Government employees stating that they were disqualified under Bye-Law 4(b). Pursuant to the directions of the third respondent on the said representation, the Fisheries Development Officer, Sangareddy, enquired into the matter and submitted a report, along with a resolution passed by the society. Thereupon, the third respondent issued notice to 60 members of the Society calling upon them to explain as to why they should not be disqualified from their membership under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by 38 members pursuant to the notice issued to them, the third respondent passed orders dated 16.04.2001, expelling the 60 members from their membership of the fourth respondent-society. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who stayed the operation of the order dated 16.04.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the President of the fourth respondent-Society preferred a revision before the first respondent, who in turn allowed the same and remitted the matter to the second respondent with a direction to examine the case in detail keeping in view Bye-law 4(b) and to pass appropriate orders. The Second respondent by his order dated 04.09.2001 confirmed the admission of 49 members who were enrolled as members prior to the amendment of Bye-law Nos. 4(a) and (b) and held that they cannot be removed from the primary membership of the society. In so far as the remaining 11 members are concerned, the second respondent held that they are not eligible to be members of the society as they are Government employees and were admitted as members after the amendment of Bye- law 4(b). However, with regard to 13 members, the second respondent directed the third respondent to verify the validity of their admission and take necessary action. Aggrieved thereby, the fourth respondent filed a revision before the first respondent, who after hearing the parties, allowed the revision by order dated 29.09.2001, upholding the orders passed by the third respondent in expelling the 60 members and directed the third respondent to enquire into the details as to the admission of 13 members as per the orders passed by the second respondent and take further action. Hence, the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after having heard both sides, held that as the reason given by the second respondent to the effect that the members admitted prior to amendment of Bye-law cannot be disqualified is patently erroneous in view of Sections 19 and 21 of the Act and therefore, the first respondent rightly held that the petitioners who are gainfully employed are not entitled to be continued as members of the fourth respondent-Society. The complaint that the first respondent has not given sufficient opportunity before passing the impugned order was found to be unsustainable. Eventually, the writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, the writ appeal is preferred. Heard the learned counsel on either side. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners that the learned single judge ought to have interpreted the language envisaged in the Sections 19 and 21 of the Act read with Rule 20 of the Act in the right perspective and ought to have considered the scope of Bye-law 4(a) and (b) in consonance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder. She further contended that nowhere in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, persons who are gainfully employed are held disentitled to be continued as members. She also contended that the learned single judge ought to have seen that the reasoning given by the third respondent as confirmed by the first respondent is not in consonance with the language envisaged under Sections 19 and 21 of the Act and the Bye-laws and argued that the learned Judge ought to have set aside disqualification of the members. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent contends that the order passed by the learned single Judge is based on law and there is no error whatsoever warranting interference with the same. He further submits that there are no grounds made out to interfere in this appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned Counsel, the legal position governing the field is extracted below for the sake of convenience to resolve the lis: SECTION 19: ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP: (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 21: (a) An individual who attained majority and is of sound mind and who belongs to a class of persons, if any, for whom, the society is formed as per its bye- laws and who possesses such qualifications as may be specified in the bye-laws or as may be prescribed for the concerned class of societies in the interest of cooperative movement. (b) ……… SECTION 21: DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OF SOCIETY: (1) A person shall be disqualified for being admitted as, and for being, a member if he--- (a) ………… (aa) is not eligible for membership under section 19. (b) to (e) ……… RULE 20: REMOVAL OF A MEMBER OF A SOCIETY WHO IS DISQUALIFIED:--(1)) If any person, who is admitted as a member of a society becomes disqualified under Section 21 to continue as such, the Registrar may, on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society of its financing bank by an order in writing, declare that he shall cease to be a member of the society from the date of such disqualification. (2) Before passing an order under sub-rule (1) the Registrar shall give such person an opportunity state his objection, if any, for the proposed action and if the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given opportunity to be heard. The Registrar’s decision shall be final and binding on the society and it shall not be questioned if any Court.” Admittedly, the appellants/petitioners formed into a Fishermen Co-operative Society in the year 1959 and the same was registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1964. It is also not in dispute that the Fishermen Co-operative Societies are formed with the principal object of providing employment to its members, namely, fishermen who are solely dependant on fishing operations. The Government also provided some incentives to the Fishermen Co- operative Societies for their development. It is to be seen that the Society amended the Bye-law 4 and brought out provisions 4(a) and 4(b) in its place, according to which no member, who has an other source of income by way of employing himself in other profession shall be admitted into the society. It is true that Bye-law 4(b) clearly stipulates a prohibition of membership to those who are employed or are getting a regular income for seeking entry into the society. However, the same is not retrospective in effect and therefore not applicable to the members who have been in the society right from its inception. But, Section 19 (1)(a) of the Act deals with the eligibility for membership subject to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. If any person who attained majority and is of sound mind and who belongs to a class of persons as per its Bye-laws and who possesses such qualification as may be specified in the Bye-laws can become a member of the society. Section 21(aa) of the Act stipulates the disqualification from membership of the society if he is not eligible for membership under Section 19 of the Act or other subsequent changes or developments mentioned therein. It is noteworthy to mention that Section 19 of the Act contemplates the eligibility for membership to those who belong to a class of persons which itself means that the persons who are actually dependant on fishing operations and are eking out their livelihood from such fishing operations. If the same is not restricted to persons solely depending on fishing operations, the very purpose, aim and object of forming the society would be defeated and if persons, notwithstanding their employment elsewhere, got admitted into the fishermen co-operative society, real fishermen who have no other source of income will be deprived of their livelihood. Such is not the intention of the Legislature in organizing the fishermen co-operative societies, particularly where the society is a functional society, formed with certain aims and objects to help the poor and needy fishermen. Though it is not in dispute that the petitioners at the time of their admission into the fourth respondent– society were solely depending on fishing operations, but by the subsequent development of their getting government jobs, now they are not solely depending on fishing operations. Eventually, as they are in other employment, it would not be possible for them to carry on fishing operations simultaneously. Therefore, if such gainfully employed members are permitted to continue as members of the fishermen society, the very purpose, aim and object of organizing such fishermen co-operative societies will be utterly defeated and poor fishermen who are in fact eking out their livelihood only by fishing operations will be put to a great loss. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners that the petitioners/appellants who were qualified as on the date of formation of the society cannot be disqualified in view of their subsequent employment, was rightly rejected by the learned single judge. Further, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that Bye-law No.4(a) and 4(b) will not have any retrospective effect was discussed by the learned single judge in his judgment at page No.12 in the right perspective. The qualifications as specified in the Bye-laws are qualifications for eligibility for membership even according to Section 19 of the Act. As already noticed, the language of Section 21 of the Act is wide enough to embrace disqualifications not only for being admitted as a member, but also for being continued as a member. Section 21 of the Act covers cases of disqualification for being admitted and for being a member. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 covers cases of admission of members who are not eligible for being admitted as well as the members who incur disqualification for continuance as a member under sub-section (1). Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 19 and 21 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that not only a person must have qualification for being admitted as a member with reference to the Bye-laws of the society, but also for being continued as a member. The contention that the second respondent has passed the impugned order vide proceedings dated 16.04.2001 without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellants cannot be countenanced as the record reveals that adequate opportunity was given to them before passing the impugned order. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any necessity to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, which is valid and legal. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners that some of the appellants/petitioners are not in Government service and that they are eligible to be continued as members in the Society. In that view of the matter, the appellants/petitioners, who are not in Government service and are still continuing fishing operations are permitted to make a representation to the respondents for grant of membership in the fourth respondent- Society and on such representation, if any, being made, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------ T.MEENA KUMARI, J --------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J 3rd JUNE, 2009 PGS THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.40 OF 2002 (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 3rd JUNE, 2009.