THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9213 of 2010 Dated 24th March, 2011 Between: Gajuladinne Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited …Petitioner And The District Collector, Kurnool District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Fisheries Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 13: Sri K.V.Raghuveer Counsel for respondent No.14: Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the impugned paper publication, dated 16.04.2010, of respondent No.3, inviting fishermen from Gajuladinne, Gonegandla, Ganjahalli, Ironbanda-A, Yenakandla and Neruduppala Villages, for conducting skill test, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a Fishermen Cooperative Society. When about 100 fishermen sought for admission into the petitioner- Society, it has passed unanimous resolution, dated 08.04.2010, rejecting the applications for admission on the ground that the Society becomes unviable if new members are admitted. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the resolution was communicated to the official respondents. However, a few days later, the impugned press notice was published, whereby the fishermen from the above-noted villages were required to be present at Gajuladinne reservoir for conducting the skill test. This is questioned by the petitioner-Society on the ground that the applications of the fishermen, who sought for admission into the Society, having been rejected, the attempt of the official respondents in conducting skill test is wholly illegal. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.4 to 13. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner-Society was registered on 25.06.1985 with its area of operation covering villages of Gajuladinne, Gonegandla, Neruduppala, Pilligundla, Ironbanda, Kairavadi as per the bye-laws of the Society and Gajuladinne, Gonegandla, Ganjahalli, Ironbanda, Yenakandla and Neruduppala, as per the admission register. That 2705 hectares of the reservoir fall under the petitioner’s area of operation and that it is perennial in nature. Respondent No.2 denied the petitioner’s plea that there is no sufficient fishery wealth in the reservoir and that as per the report of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Gajuladinne Project, the reservoir is not emptied during 2005-09, expect for four months during 2009 from April to July. It is further averred that there were 80 members in the Society, out of whom, 13 members died, leaving 67 members at present and that considering the extent of the reservoir, the Society continues to be viable upto 2705 members i.e., one hector to each member as per the guidelines of the Commissioner of Fisheries, vide his circular memo No.26130I(1)/83, dated 23.12.1983. Respondent No.2 has referred to circular memo No.182/I(i)/97, dated 16.10.1998, of the Commissioner of Fisheries, constituting Three-man Committee for identification of eligible fishermen for fishing skills. That fishermen of nine surrounding villages around Gajuladinne Project, submitted applications to the District Collector’s Grievance Cell on 11.06.2007, 23.09.2008, 29.08.2008 and 31.03.2010, for admission into the Society, that the District Collector has sent those applications to the office of respondent No.2 for taking necessary action and that as the Gajuladinne reservoir is having 2705 hectares of water spread area, which is sufficient to accommodate upto 2705 members, the applications of 682 fishermen received by the office of respondent No.2 were forwarded to the petitioner-Society to offer its opinion during the general body meeting in terms of Section 19(2-A) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). It is also averred that the petitioner-Society in its general body meeting held on 08.04.2010 resolved not to admit new members into the Society without sufficient and valid reasons. Respondent No.2 reiterated that while the Society can accommodate more than 2000 fishermen, only 67 fishermen are enjoying the fishery wealth and they are refusing to admit new members and that the skill test is ordered for the intending members in order to ascertain their eligibility to become members of the Society. The contents of the counter affidavit filed by the impleaded respondents need not be discussed in the view this Court is proposing to take. The issue relating to the entitlement of the persons, who intend to participate in the skill test, is not before this Court. The only issue that needs to be resolved in this writ petition is whether the attempt of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to hold skill test to the fishermen of the Villages surrounding Gajuladinne project violates any provisions of the Act, the bye-laws of the Society or circular instructions of the Government or any of the Officers of the Fisheries Department. The petitioner has filed a copy of the statement of respondent No.3 published in the newspaper, wherein he has announced that skill test will be conducted to the fishermen, who are residents of Gonegandla on 24.04.2010, Ganjahalli and Ironbanda-A on 25.04.2010, and Gajuladinne, Yenakandla and Neruduppala on 26.04.2010. Nothing is discernable from the said press statement as to whether they are being admitted as members of the Society or their rights have already been decided for admission into the Society. The main plank, on which, the present writ petition is filed to restrain respondent Nos.2 and 3 from conducting skill test, is that all the applications forwarded by respondent No.2 to the petitioner- Society were rejected by it, through its resolution passed on 08.04.2010 and therefore, the proposed skill test is an exercise in futility. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing that the resolution rejecting the applications for admission was not communicated to the applicants. Under Section 19(3) of the Act, the decision of the Managing Committee refusing admission shall be communicated by registered post to the persons seeking such admission within fifteen days of the date of the decision or within sixty days from the date of his application for admission, whichever is earlier. In my opinion, the communication of the decision of refusal to admit is of vital importance because the aggrieved party is entitled to file an appeal against such decision under Section 76 of the Act before the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, within sixty days from the date of communication to the applicant of the decision. Unless such communication is effected, the same cannot be enforced against the applicant. As such, in my opinion, the resolution, dated 08.04.2010, of the petitioner-society, cannot be considered as valid resolution affecting rights of the intending members so as to deny them the right to participate in the skill test. Mere passing of skill test will not be the sole criterion for an applicant to become a member of the Society because he has to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 19 of the Act read with the bye-laws of the Society. Therefore, in the light of the above-undisputed facts, I do not find any illegality in the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in seeking to hold skill test to ascertain the eligibility of the persons, who are aspiring to become the members of the petitioner-Society, subject to their satisfying the eligibility criteria under the above noted provisions of the Act and the bye-laws. Hence, I do not find any reason to prevent respondent Nos.2 and 3 from holding skill test. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that mere passing of the skill test by the persons, who participate in such test, cannot be taken as the sole factor for their admission. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, while dealing with the request of the contesting respondents for their admission into the petitioner-Society after ascertaining the eligibility of the persons participating in the skill test. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 22.04.2010, granted by this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.11897 of 2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.11897 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.Nos.2390 of 2010, 1040 and 1130 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th March, 2011 VGB