THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1132 of 2008 ORDER: The Fishermen Co-operative Society, Vemulakonda village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District filed this writ petition aggrieved by the notice dated 10.01.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda, under which the President of the petitioner-Society was directed to remove 18 alleged ineligible members from the primary membership of the Society on or before 30.01.2008. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has no power or authority to direct removal of the alleged ineligible members from the primary membership of the society since such power can be exercised by the General body of the society alone under Section 21(3) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). It is to be noted that a similar notice was issued earlier by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda, on 27.05.2003 directing removal of 26 members of the petitioner-society stating that they were identified by the Nodal team as ineligible for being admitted as members. In pursuance thereof, the General body meeting was convened on 14.6.2003 and 8 members were removed from the rolls of the society. However, the Assistant Director of Fisheries issued another notice dated 7.8.2003 directing that the 26 ineligible members should be removed from the rolls of the society forthwith failing which legal action would be taken against the Managing Committee of the society. The said action of the Assistant Director of Fisheries was challenged in W.P.No18740 of 2003. This Court after hearing both the parties by order dated 13.12.2007 allowed the said writ petition in part setting aside the notice dated 7.8.2003 holding that as per Section 21(3) of the Act, as amended on 5.4.2001, the General body of the society alone is competent to remove the members from the membership of the society when they became ineligible or disqualified. However, the respondents were granted liberty to take steps for removal of the ineligible members, if any, if the General body inclines to remove them from the rolls of the society. Having regard to the said findings recorded by this Court in W.P.No.18740 of 2003, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Fisheries-2nd respondent herein, ought not to have issued the impugned proceedings dated 10.1.2008 directing the President of the society to remove the remaining 18 members also who, according to the 2nd respondent, were ineligible to continue as members. It is contended that the impugned order is not only contrary to the provisions of the Act, but also in violation of the order of this Court in the earlier writ petition. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that since this Court granted liberty to the respondents to take steps for removal of the ineligible members, the 2nd respondent had rightly issued the impugned notice dated 10.1.2008 calling upon the petitioner-society to remove the ineligible members still continuing on the rolls of the society. It is also contended that the respondents are competent to issue such directions from time to time under Section 4(2) of the Act in the interest of the co-operative movement in order to prevent the affairs of the society from being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the members. It is alleged that since the petitioner-society developed vested interest against 18 members who were ineligible, they were being allowed to continue in the society to support its activities. Respondent No.4, who got himself impleaded, while alleging that no elections were conducted to the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society, contended that the writ petition filed by one Ambati Anjaiah styling himself as President is not maintainable. It is further alleged that the said Ambati Anjaiah is also an ineligible member and is liable to be removed from the membership of the society as per the directions of the 2nd respondent. It is also pleaded that as per the orders of the District Collector, Nalgonda, a Grama Sabha was conducted in the village by the committee constituted for the purpose of identifying ineligible members in the society. The said committee identified 52 members as ineligible by physical verification, including 26 members who were directed to be removed by the 2nd respondent. Hence, all the said 26 ineligible members were liable to be removed. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that as already held by this Court in W.P.No.18740 of 2008, the General body of the society alone is competent to remove the disqualified or ineligible members from the rolls of the society under Section 21(3) of the Act. Though prior to the amendment under Act No.22 of 2001 with effect from 25.4.2001 the said power was also conferred on the Registrar to be exercised on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society or its federal society or financing bank, after the amendment the General body of the society alone has the authority to remove the ineligible or disqualified members. The said power under sub-section (3) of Section 21, as it stands as on today, can be exercised by the General body on its own motion or on a representation made to it by any member of the society or its federal society or its financing bank. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot direct removal of the alleged ineligible members. It is true that this Court granted liberty to take steps for removal of the ineligible members if any, however, the same does not empower the respondents to take any steps contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is not in dispute that the General body of the petitioner-society has already removed 8 members out of the 26 members specified in the notice of the Assistant Director dated 7.8.2003, having found that they were ineligible to continue as members. As observed by this Court the General body of the petitioner-society might have felt that the rest of the members are not liable to be removed from the rolls of the society. Hence, the society cannot be compelled to remove the rest of the members also who according to the 2nd respondent were ineligible. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order dated 10.1.2008 which is not in accordance with law cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. Though the 4th respondent who is a member of the society made several allegations as to the very constitution of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society, the same being beyond the scope of the issue involved in this writ petition, I am not inclined to express any opinion and it is left open to be agitated by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. 14.07.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1132 of 2008 Between: Fishermen Co-operative Society, Vemulakonda Village, Veligonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, rep by its President Ambati Anjaiah S/o Saianna aged 50 years R/o Vemulakonda (V), Velugonda (M), Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of fisheries, Musthya Bhavan, Shanthi Nagar, Vijayanagar, Colony, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4. Venkatesham S/o Krishnaiah, 61 years, Vemulakonda village Velugonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order (notice) of the Dy. Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda Vide Letter No. 684/B/2005, dated 10-1-2008 as bad arbitrary and contrary to the provision of APCS. Act 1964 as amended and also the orders of the Hon'ble Court in WP No. 18740 of 2003, dated 13-12-2007 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. M. VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following: