HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8238 of 2010 Date: 28.09.2011 Between: Primary FCS Ltd., Ramojipalli Village, Medak District, Reptd by its President, Palvanchi Kishtaiah, ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Fisheries, Matsya Bhavani Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad and 25 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms M.Vidyavathi Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Fisheries Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 26: Sri A.Santosh Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare memo No.1170/D/09, dated 04.11.2009, of respondent No.2 and consequently, notice No.FDO/S/10, dated 06.04.2010, of respondent No.3 as illegal. The petitioner is a Fishermen Co-Operative Society with 18 members. There appear to be a long pending demand from various persons for getting admitted into the petitioner-society as members. When 31 members including respondent Nos.4 to 26, who got themselves impleaded in the Writ Petition, approached respondent No.2 by submitting applications for their admission into the said society, the latter forwarded the same to the petitioner-society for consideration. By order, dated 16.12.2009, the General Body of the petitioner-society passed a resolution rejecting their applications on the ground that they do not belong to the fishermen community and that, they do not have any skill either in fishing or in preparing fishing nets. It is not in dispute that this resolution has not been questioned so far. However, these 31 members again appeared to have approached respondent No.2 and thereupon, the latter has issued the impugned notice No.FDO/S/10, dated 06.04.2010, proposing to hold skill test and informing that those who want to become members of the petitioner-society to be present at Immaicheruvu of Ramojipalli Village on 13.04.2010 at 11 am., for holding skill test. This notice is questioned in this Writ Petition on the ground that respondent No.2 does not have the power and authority to issue such a notice. The petitioner pleaded that under Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), it is the General Body of the society which is the competent authority to admit/enroll the individuals as new members and that the General Body of the society has passed a resolution unanimously on 22.09.2009 on the applications of 15 fishermen, who hail from the fishermen community, agreeing to admit them as members and that, even before their admission is considered, interference by respondent No.2, at the instance of third parties, cannot be permitted. Even though the petitioner has not specifically referred to resolution, dated 16.12.2009, of the General Body, respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit categorically averred that such a resolution was passed by the petitioner rejecting the applications of 31 members including respondent Nos.4 to 26 for admission into the society. In my opinion, so long as the said resolution has not been challenged by aggrieved parties under Section 76 of the Act by way of an appeal before the Tribunal, they cannot be considered. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 26 has candidly admitted that the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 is intended to accommodate respondent Nos.4 to 26. Respondent No.2 cannot sit in appeal over the resolution passed by the petitioner and it is only the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Tribunal which is competent to examine the legality or otherwise of the said resolution. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice, dated 06.04.2010, of respondent No.3 is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to respondent Nos.4 to 26 to approach the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Tribunal for assailing the validity of resolution, dated 16.12.2009, of the General Body of the petitioner-society. Subject to the liberty given to respondent Nos.4 to 26 as above, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.10611 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of and W.V.M.P.No.3193 of 2011 filed by impleaded respondents is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th September, 2011 DR