IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 116 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/12/2008 in WP NO : 3191 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: K.Srinivas, S/o.Hanumaiah, Fishermen Co-operative Society, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner of Fisheries, Mastya Bhavan, Shantinagar, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 The Asst. Director of Fisheries, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 4 Bantu Somaiah S/o.Yellaiah Fishermen Co-Operative Society, Miryalguda, R/o.2nd Ward, Talklagadda, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 5 Medarapu Muttaiah S/o.Venkaiah Fishermen Co-Operative Society, Miryalguda, R/o.Yadagarpalli (v), Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MS.M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the RespondentS.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 116 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.No.3191 of 2008 is whether the view of the learned single Judge in holding that the Registrar has power and jurisdiction under Section 4(2) of the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) to declare that the President of the Society or a member of the managing committee, has ceased to hold office for not holding requisite number of meetings under Section 32 (3) of the Act, is correct or not. We have gone through the detailed judgment of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has held that while cessation for holding requisite number of meetings is automatic under Section 32 (3) of the Act, in the absence of specific procedure prescribed by the Act for declaring such cessation, under Section (2) the Registrar concerned is empowered to exercise power of general superintendence and make a formal declaration of such cessation. Though Ms. M. Vidyavathi tried to convince us that the view taken by the learned single Judge is not correct, we are not in agreement with her submission. As rightly held by the learned single Judge, when the statute has not prescribed specific procedure to declare cessation, it is reasonable to construe that Section 4 (2) of the Act has empowered the Registrar to exercise such power. Therefore, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, it is stated that the appellant has already submitted his explanation to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2. We permit the appellant to file additional explanation, if any, within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of such explanation, respondent No.2 shall pass a detailed order, after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. If the appellant feels aggrieved by any order to be passed by respondent No.2 in pursuance of the show cause notice, he is at liberty to avail remedy that is available to him under law. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Dated: 11th February, 2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 116 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) 11.2.2009