IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.27419 of 2010 Between: Kalala Shanker and others. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. M.Vidyavathi. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Fisheries for R.1 and R.2. None for R.3. Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not de- registering respondent No.3- Society as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”). I have heard Ms. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries for respondents 1 and 2. As the learned counsel for respondent No.3 was not present in the forenoon when the case was called, it was passed over. Even in the post lunch session, neither the learned counsel for respondent No.3 is present nor any representation is made on its behalf. The petitioners pleaded that they belong to Mudiraj community and fishermen by profession; that from the period of their fore-fathers their families have been living on catching fish in ‘Uracheruvu’ in Pembatla village; that they were prevented from catching the fish in the said tank by a group of persons of their village; that their enquiries revealed that a Fishermen Co- operative Society was registered for Pembatla village in the year 2003 with twelve members; that out of the said twelve members, five members, by names, Algottu Pedda Narsaiah s/o. Chinna Gangaram, Algottu Nadipi Narsaiah s/o. Chinna Gangaram, Algottu Lakshmi Narasaiah s/o.Bumaiah, Jumbarthi Pedda Narsaiah s/o.Dubbiah and Jumbarthi Pedda Narsaiah s/o. Dubbiah have been working in Gulf countries for their livelihood; and that no one out of these persons was available in Pembatla village even at the time of registration of respondent No.3-Society. The petitioners placed reliance on Section 9-B of the Act, under which if the membership of a Society falls short of the minimum number prescribed for registration of a Society, such Society is liable to be de-registered. The petitioners made a representation on 25-9-2010 to respondent No.2 for deregistration of respondent No.3-Society on the ground that in view of non-availability of five persons in the country, the Society fell short of the required number of ten members. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 has not taken any action on such representation. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is, inter alia, stated that on the proposals submitted by the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, Dharmapuri, respondent No.2 has submitted necessary proposals to the Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Warangal, on 7-4-2003 for registration of respondent No.3-Society; that the Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Warangal, in turn, submitted proposals to the Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyderabad, on 3-5- 2003; and that the latter has accorded permission for organization of new fishermen co-operative Society at Pembatla village & Mandal, Sarangapoor on 6-10-2003. It is further averred that as per the said permission granted by the Commissioner, respondent No.2 has registered respondent No.3-Society on 22-10-2003 with twelve members; and that at the time of registration of the Society, both the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sarangapoor, and the Panchayat Secretary Pembatla village have issued certificates, in which the water spread area of Uracheruvu was shown as Ac.30.20 guntas (12 hectares), which is sufficient for the proposed twelve members. It is further stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sarangapoor and also the Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch of the Pembatla village have issued separate family members certificates dated 17-6-2003 in favour of all the twelve members; and that all those twelve members were present and have signed the proposals along with the bye-laws apart from attending the skill test conducted by the Committee Members. It is further averred that the Panchayat Secretary of Pembatla Gram Panchayat has issued certificate dated 11-11-2010, wherein it is stated that the five persons, viz., Algottu Pedda Narsaiah s/o. Chinna Gangaram, Algottu Nadipi Narsaiah s/o. Chinna Gangaram, Algottu Lakshmi Narasaiah s/o.Bumaiah, Jumbarthi Pedda Narsaiah s/o.Dubbiah and Jumbarthi Pedda Narsaiah s/o. Dubbiah, have not been residing in Pembatla village; that on the instructions of respondent No.2 the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, Dharmapuri, has enquired about the nativity of the above mentioned five persons; that during the enquiry it was revealed that three of the above five persons are staying in Gulf countries; that the remaining two have returned to India recently; and that all the five members are not permanently residing in Pembatla village. On behalf of respondent No.3 it is asserted that all the twelve members are residents of Pembatla village; and that they are very much residing in the village. Some material is filed by respondent No.3 in order to substantiate this plea. Under Section 9-B (1) of the Act the Registrar shall, at any time, of his own motion and after giving a society an opportunity of making its representation, if any, by order, de-register a society which is in existence for a period not exceeding four years from the date of its registration, if any or all of the contingencies mentioned in sub-Clauses (i) to (iv) thereof exist. As noted above, it is specifically averred by respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit that respondent No.3-Society was registered on 22-10-2003. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The provisions of Section 9-B of the Act enable de-registration of a Society for a period not exceeding four years from the date of its registration. It is thus implied from the provision that in respect of the Societies which were in existence for the period exceeding four years, the said provision for de-registration is not attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any other provision of the Act under which the Society, which is in existence for more than four years, can be de-registered. In view of the admitted facts and the legal position, even if the maximum number of members has fallen below the required number of ten members, no action for de-registration of the Society can be taken. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioners from seeking appropriate action against respondent No.3-Society under any other provision of the Act. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25-1-2011 MNR