IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12151 of 2009 Between: Bommeda Rajaiah S/o.KOmuraiah R/o.Venkatapur village, and Mandal Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society, Mulug Warangal District 2 Veeramneni Seetharama Rao S/o.Not known 3 Kamepalli Ramana Reddy S/o.Not known 4 Poladi Vasanth Rao S/o.Not known 5 Gurram Thirupathaiah S/o.Not known 6 Veldandi Chandramouli S/o.Not known 7 Bomma Saraiah S/o.Not known 8 Ponaganti Ravinder S/o.Not known 9 Jarupula Swamy Naik S/o.Not known 10 Chennoju Srinivas S/o.Not known Respondents 2 to 10 are R/o.Venkatapur village and Mandal, Warangal District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Notice in Rc.No.268/2009-C dated 10.6.2009 issued by the first respondent for motion of no-confidence against the petitioner and qaush the same holding it as highly ,arbitrary, bad and illegal, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CO-OPERATION The Court made the following: O R D E R:- Aggrieved by the Notice dated 10.06.2009 issued by the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, for conducting no-confidence motion against the petitioner, namely the President of the A.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society and its Vice President, namely Poladi Vasantha Rao, the present writ petition is filed praying to quash the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially a resolution proposing to move no-confidence motion against any of the Directors elected to the Society has to be passed, and then a Notice calling for a meeting to discuss and consider the motion of “No Confidence” against the individuals has to be issued, but contrary to it, nine Directors, including the Vice President, without consulting the President, submitted application dated 3.6.2009 in Form-AAA, requesting the 1st respondent to take up no-confidence motion against the President and Vice-President of the Society, and thereafter, passed a Resolution allegedly on 5.6.2009, which cannot be believed, because the Vice President will not pass a resolution against himself, and based on such alleged resolution, the impugned notice is issued, which is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that separate notices have to be issued for considering the motion of “no confidence” moved against the President and the Vice President, and they cannot be clubbed by issuing a single notice. Hence, he submitted that on this ground also, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation for respondent No.1, and perused the material placed on record. The material placed before the Court would show that on 03.06.2009, out of 13 Directors, eight of them categorically expressed their “No Confidence” in the petitioner and another, namely the President and the Vice President. Thereafter, on 05.06.2009, the matter was placed before the Managing Committee of the P.A.C.S., which having considered the same, passed a resolution. Based on such resolution, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice. Inasmuch as in moving “No Confidence” motion against the President and the Vice President, and in calling for the conduct of the meeting to consider the motion of “No Confidence”, the respondents have scrupulously complied with the provisions of Section 34-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, no interference is called for with the impugned notice, and more so when the majority of the Directors, are said to have moved and passed the resolution. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd June, 2009 bcj