THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27354 of 2010 Date:10.03.2011 Between: Dulipalla Nagendra Vara Prasad ..... Petitioner AND The District Cooperative Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Cooperation Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.1253/2010C, dated 20.10.2010, of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner is the Vice President of respondent No.3- Society. Respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice, dated 11.10.2010, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 19.10.2010, as to why an order declaring that he ceased to hold office as Member of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3- Society shall not be passed, on the ground that he did not attend eight consecutive Managing Committee and General Body Meetings. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has received the notice on 16.10.2010 and that immediately he approached respondent No.2 with a request to extend the time for filing his explanation till 31.10.2010. It is his further case that respondent No.2, having received the same, directed the petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 31.10.2010 and that without waiting till expiry of the extended time, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order declaring that the petitioner has incurred disqualification for continuing as Member of the Managing Committee, as he absented himself for three consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee of respondent No.3-Society. At the hearing, the only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, as adequate opportunity for submitting his explanation was not afforded to the petitioner. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, and respondent No.4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is inter a l i a stated that the petitioner was absent for eight consecutive Managing Committee meetings of the Society and thereby, he incurred disqualification for continuing as member of the Managing Committee in terms of Section 21-B(1) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and bye-law No.24 of the Society. As regards the issue of show-cause notice, it is stated that the same was received by the petitioner on 12.10.2010, but he has not submitted his explanation. Respondent No.2 has denied the plea of the petitioner that on receipt of the show-cause notice, he has approached him and that on his request, time for filing his explanation was extended till 31.10.2010. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation fairly submitted with reference to the record that the show- cause notice was served on the petitioner on 18.10.2010. As noted above, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has received the show-cause notice on 16.10.2010. Even accepting the petitioner’s plea as correct, in my opinion, respondent No.2 has not given proper opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, as giving four days’ time for submitting his explanation is too short to be termed as a proper and adequate opportunity. Therefore, even if the plea of respondent No.2 that the petitioner has never made a request for extension of time is accepted as correct, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is denied proper opportunity to represent his case before holding that he ceased to hold the office as Member of the Managing Committee. In the premises as above, the impugned order is set aside. Since it is admitted that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 26.10.2010, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34941 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th March, 2011 VGB