The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.18488 of 2010 Date: 22.09.2011 Between: Sri Baidevathamma Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, Venkatapuram, rep. by its President K.Rami Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of A.P., Santhinagar, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Ramgopal for Mr.G.Vijaya Babu Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Fisheries The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent vide his Progs.No.5881/II/2010, dated 23-07-2010, appointing Sri R.Srinivasulu, Fisheries Development Officer, Arnyar as Official Person-in- Charge to the petitioner-Society as illegal, inoperative and violative of Section 31 (2) (c) of the Co-operative Societies Act and also Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.” A perusal of the impugned order shows that ignoring the election held, by the petitioner- Society for the Managing Committee, on 21-07-2010, before the expiry of the term of the previous one, a Person-in-Charge was appointed for a period of six months with effect from 25-07-2010 or till the elections are conducted and the elected body assumes charge, whichever is earlier. This direction was based on an assumption that the petitioner- Society has received financial benefit from the Government in the form of concession and therefore, under Section 31 (2) (b) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 22 (b) of the Rules made thereunder, the elections have to be held by the Registrar and not by the incumbent Committee, as envisaged under Clause (c) of Section 31 (2). It is stated in the impugned order that as the petitioner- Society has offered only Rs.3,50,000/- against the sum of Rs.7,30,000/-, offered in the open auction, and it was granted lease in terms of G.O.Ms.No.776, Food and Agriculture Fish.(II) Dept., dated 31-12-1990, the same shall be treated as receiving aid. In my opinion, this reasoning, by which the petitioner- Society is treated as an aided one and consequently, falling under Section 43 (h) of the Act, is irrational and unintelligible. If this reasoning is to be adopted and accepted, every Fishermen Co-operative Society will fall under the category envisaged under Section 43 (h) of the Act, because in every case where there is a genuine Fisherman Co-operative Society available within its area of operation, where the tanks are located, such Society is being preferred for grant of leasehold rights, on payment of the upset price fixed by the competent authority, overlooking the higher bid amounts offered in the open auction. In the considered opinion of this Court, such preference, envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.776, Food and Agriculture Fish.(II) Dept., dated 31-12-1990, does not fall within the phrase “financial aid in any other form” in Section 43 (h) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in ignoring the election held by the incumbent Managing Committee of the petitioner- Society on 21-07- 2010 and appointing Person-in-Charge vide Proceedings No.5881/II/2010, dated 23-07-2010, cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel, WVMP.No.4489 of 2010 is dismissed and WPMP.No.23339 of 2010 is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 22nd September, 2011 LUR