IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25397 of 2010 Between: Mudiraj Machya Karmika Sangam Bhongir, Nalgonda District & others. ..... Petitioners AND The Commissioner of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-4: None Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri Satyanarayana for Sri M. Surender Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25397 of 2010 ORDER: I have heard Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyanarayana representing Sri M.Surender Rao for respondent No.5. Petitioner No.1 is a society consisting of residents of Bhongir and Nalgonda Districts, who have been forced to litigate for decades to get into respondent No.5 society as members to make their both ends meet. The facts narrated by the petitioners, which are not disputed, would clearly show that their efforts to become members of respondent No.5 society are being frustrated by the dilatory tactics of respondent No.5 society and the inertia of the official respondents and in particular respondent Nos.3 and 4. As far back as 26.09.1998, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings in Memo No.246/E/96, wherein he referred to the request of the then President of petitioner No.1 society for removing the bogus members and enroll the eligible persons as members and made it clear that while the matter pertaining to unauthorized and bogus membership is pursued separately, he has constituted an official three men committee for conducting skill test to the members of petitioner No.1 society. Accordingly, he directed respondent No.4 to arrange skill test and submit his report. Though more than 13 years passed by since then, the proposed skill test has not materialized. It has become customary that as and when the members of petitioner No.1 society approach respondent No.3, he issues a notice. Some of such notices dated 07.11.2006, 11.08.2010 and 22.10.2010 are filed by respondent No.3 himself along with his counter affidavit. Respondent No.3 seeks to indict respondent No.5 for this fiasco by stating that no progress could be achieved in elimination of bogus members and admission of new members due to non- cooperation of members of respondent No.5 society. Respondent No.3 seems to be labouring under a misconception that the aspects of elimination of bogus members and admission of new members found to be genuine and eligible depend upon the mercy of respondent No.5. Indeed, it is not. Section 19 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”) deals with the eligibility and admission of members into a society. Sub-section 1(a) of the said provision makes an individual, who is a major, of sound mind and belonging 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, eligible to become a member of a society. Under sub-section (2-A), any person duly qualified for admission as a member under the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws may apply through the Registrar for membership of such societies and in such forms as may be prescribed and such person shall be deemed to have been admitted as a member of the society from the date of receipt of the application in the office of the society. Sub-section (2-B) empowers the Registrar either suo motu at any time or on any application by the society or any aggrieved person made within 15 days from the date mentioned in sub-section (2-A) and after giving an opportunity to the person concerned and recording the reasons therefor declare such person as not eligible for membership of the society within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application by the Registrar. Thus, the above-noted provisions empower the Registrar to ensure admission of eligible persons as members and also remove ineligible members. The skill test in fishing is undoubtedly an aspect of eligibility for a person intending to become a member of a fishermen cooperative society. It is beyond this Court’s comprehension that respondent No.3, who is entitled to get the eligibility of the members of petitioner No.1 society determined by getting the skill test conducted, is not able to achieve any progress in this regard despite initiation of the process as far back as the year 1998, as evident from his proceedings dated 26.09.1998, referred to above. Had respondent No.3 got the skill test conducted, he should have forwarded the applications of all those persons, who got through the skill test to respondent No.5 society so that the deeming provision contained in sub-section (2-A) of Section 19 would have come into operation and all the eligible applicants would have become members. For inexplicable reasons respondent No.3 has failed to follow this procedure. Similarly, had respondent No.3 shown proper attitude, he would have exercised his power under sub-section (2-B) of Section 19 by giving notices to all those persons, who are allegedly ineligible to continue as members and declaring them as such. Instead, he allowed the issue to hang fire for more than 13 years dragging the petitioners to the needless litigation. Respondent No.3 has stated in his counter affidavit that unless the bogus members are weeded out, admission of new members will render respondent No.5 society unviable and that he has appointed the Tahsildar, Bhongir as enquiry officer vide his letter dated 07.10.2010 to conduct enquiry on the representation of the petitioners for removal of ineligible members and to take further action as per the Act. This round about procedure followed by respondent No.3 obviously to defeat the interest of the petitioners cannot be appreciated. I do not find any justification whatsoever in respondent No.3 not taking expeditious steps to ensure that the bogus members are weeded out and eligible members are admitted. The petitioners cannot be allowed to languish for years on end with their hope of becoming members dwindling with each passing day. From the facts noted above, I have no hesitation to hold that respondent No.3 has failed to discharge his statutory obligation in considering the claims of the members of petitioner No.1 society and ensuring that the ineligible and bogus members are removed from respondent No.5 society. In the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms: 1) Within one month from the date of receipt of the order, respondent No.3 shall get the skill test conducted, after notice to the President of petitioner No.1 society. On the basis of the result of the skill test, respondent No.3 shall forward the applications of the individuals, who passed the skill test, to respondent No.5 society within one month thereafter. 2) From the date of receipt of the applications referred in (1) supra by respondent No.5 society, the applicants become members of the said society by operation of sub-section (2-A) of Section 19. If respondent No.5 society has any objection on the eligibility of any or all those applicants, it may apply to respondent No.3 within the time envisaged under sub- section (2- B) of Section 19 for their removal. 3) Respondent No.3 thereupon shall take appropriate decision within the prescribed time under the said provision. 4) Within two months from the date of receipt of the order, respondent No.4 shall initiate and complete the process of weeding out the bogus members from respondent No.5 society. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP No.32441 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.02.2011 ES Note:- Issue CC in one week. ES