*THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI +WRIT PETITION NO.12443 OF 2005 % 03/11/2005 # Kareti Srinivasulu … Petitioner Vs. $ 1.The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 2.The Joint Registrar/The District Co-operative Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. Person-in-charge / Assistant Registrar / Superintendent Office of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kandukur. … Respondents. <Gist >Head Note ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.Vasantharayudu ^ Counsel for the respondent : Govt. Pleader for Co-operation Cases Referred : 1. 2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 352 (DB) 2. 1991 (2) ALT 24 (NRC) THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.12443 OF 2005 Dated: 3rd November, 2005. Between: Kareti Srinivasulu … Petitioner And 1. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kandukur, Prakasam District. 2. The Joint Registrar/The District Co-operative Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. Person-in-charge / Assistant Registrar / Superintendent Office of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kandukur. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.12443 OF 2005 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent – Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kandukur, dated 12-5- 2005 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was the elected President of The Shirdi Sai Mandal Co-operative Housing Society Limited whose term of office expired on 12-5-2005. Much prior to the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee of the society, a resolution was passed requesting the 1st respondent to conduct the elections. However, the 1st respondent failed to conduct the elections before the expiry of the term of the office of the Managing Committee and therefore the Managing Committee passed another resolution dated 7-5-2005 requesting the 1st respondent to continue the existing Managing Committee till the elections are conducted and new body is constituted for carrying out the affairs of the society. In pursuance thereof, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 9-5-2005 nominated the existing Managing Committee to continue for a period of six months w.e.f. 13-5-2005 till the elections are conducted and newly elected committee assumes charge, or until further orders are issued whichever is earlier. However three days after, on 12-5-2005 the impugned proceedings were issued by the 1st respondent cancelling the earlier order dated 9- 5-2005 and appointing the Assistant Registrar/Superintendent of the Divisional Co- operative Office, Kandukur, as Person-in-charge / Chairman for a period of three months from the date of expiry of the term of the elected Managing Committee or until the elections are conducted and the Elected Committee assumes charge or until further orders whichever is earlier. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition contending that the same is contrary to Section 32 (7) (a) of The A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) apart from being opposed to the principles of natural justice since the said order was passed without any prior notice to the existing Managing Committee. It is also alleged that since the impugned order was passed under the instructions of the 2nd respondent and evidently the 1st respondent failed to independently exercise the power conferred under Section 32 (7) of the Act, the impugned order is ex facie bad, illegal and arbitrary. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that after expiry of the term of the elected body on 12-5-2005, the 1st respondent appointed the petitioner and other members of the existing committee as Person-in-charge Committee of the society to look after the business of the society. However, it was found that, on a representation made by the members of the society alleging fraud and misrepresentation against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ordered enquiry by the District Co-operative Audit Officer, Ongole vide proceedings dated 10-1-2005 and in pursuance thereof, a report dated 11-3-2005 was submitted recommending regular enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kandukur was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 6-5-2005 to inquire into the allegations. Having came to know of the said proceedings, particularly the preliminary enquiry report in which it was found that the allegation of fraud against the petitioner was proved, the impugned proceedings were issued cancelling the earlier order dated 9-5-2005 and appointing the third respondent as Person-in-charge of the society. It is also stated that the petitioner and other members attended the enquiry conducted by the District Co- operative Audit Officer, Ongole and in the said enquiry the allegations against the petitioner were found to be proved and accordingly a regular enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was ordered in which the petitioner will be again afforded an opportunity as provided under the law. It is alleged that the petitioner had not handed over the records either to the third respondent or to the enquiry officer so far which is in violation of the provisions of the Act. Hence, the petitioner who had not approached the Court with clean hands is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, and perused the material on record. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12-5-2005 itself shows that the same was passed on the basis of the letter of the Joint Registrar dated 7-5-2005. In the counter-affidavit, it has been explained that it was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent by letter dated 7-5-2005 that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Co-operative Officer, Ongole, it was found that the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation made against the petitioner were established and consequently a regular enquiry under Section 51 of the Act has already been ordered. It is true that the petitioner filed an affidavit in Reply disputing the plea of the respondents that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the District Co-operative Officer, Ongole, the petitioner was issued a notice and he participated in the enquiry. However, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into that issue and express any opinion with regard to the rival claims. Since admittedly the term of the elected members has already expired, the petitioner cannot claim any legal right to continue in office even as Person-in-charge. As held in ELAKOLANU PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, ELAKOLANU AND OTHERS vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND OTHERS, Section 32 (7) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) confers discretion upon the appropriate authority to appoint persons-in-charge and the elected members of the committee of the society on the expiry of their tenure have no legal right to be appointed as persons-in-charge. Therefore, in the absence of plea of malice in law, this Court will not issue any directions which run contrary to the discretionary power conferred upon the appointing authority under Section 32 (7) of the Act. Moreover, in the case on hand, an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act has already been ordered against the petitioner, which prima facie shows that the petitioner is guilty of fraud and irregularities. Hence, the impugned proceedings whereunder the appointment of the petitioner as person-in-charge was cancelled cannot be said to be on irrelevant grounds nor can it be termed as arbitrary exercise of power. The further contention of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are without application of mind to the relevant factors is also without substance. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in G.RAMA RAO & OTHERS. vs. SPL. GRADE DY. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY is of no assistance to the case on hand since the facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable. Therefore, the mere fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned proceedings is of no consequence and on that ground the impugned order cannot be held to be arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is without any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. __________________ 3rd November, 2005. Note: LR Copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs