THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P. No. 25236 of 2007 and C.C. No. 1284 of 2007 Common Order: The petitioner claims to be the member of respondent No.2- Society. The petitioner states that respondent No.2-Society was registered under the Registration of Societies Act and started functioning from the year 1956, in a building constructed in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, bearing D. No. 6-22 situated in R.S. No. 148 of Mallavaram village. Since the said building became old and dilapidated, the members of respondent No.2-Society requested respondent No.4, namely the Chairman, District Cooperative Central Bank, Eluru, West Godavari District, to grant some funds for construction of new building. Accordingly, respondent No.4 has granted Rs.4,75,000/- under the scheme of ICDP (Interior Cooperative Development Project). While the matter stood thus, the petitioner states that the President of respondent No.2-Society, in collusion with respondent Nos.6 and 7, is trying to construct the new building at Mallavaramlanka village, a minor Panchayat, situated at a distance of five Kilometers from Mallavaram village. The petitioner further states that respondent No.6, without any authority, right, title or interest over the property executed a registered settlement deed dated 13.08.2007 to an extent of 242 Sq. yards in favour of respondent No.7 for construction of new building in respondent No.6 Panchayat i.e., Mallavaramlanka village, and since the document executed by respondent No.6 is void under law respondent No.2-Society has no right to construct a building in the site conferred under void document executed by respondent No.6. The petitioner states that since the Society has got its own site in Mallavaram village, there is no need or necessity to provide site in Mallavaramlanka to respondent No.2- Society for construction of building. The case of the petitioner is that though the document executed by respondent No.6 in favour of respondent No.7 is much prior to the General Body Meeting held on 29.09.2007, respondent No.2-Society has not even discussed the subject in the said meeting, and if the building is constructed in a different village with the funds of the major members of Mallavaram village, the members of respondent No.2-Society will face more troubles to reach the Society office for their day to day business transactions. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. This court, on 29.11.2007, while issuing notice before admission, granted stay of all further proceedings. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 13.12.2007. While the matter stood thus, it is the case of the petitioner that in spite of service of stay orders passed by this Court and published in Eenadu Daily on 02.12.2007, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 are said to have proceeded with the construction of building at Mallavaramlanka village by misusing the funds allotted for construction of the building at Mallavaram village, the petitioner filed contempt case, alleging violation of the interim orders. The President of respondent No.2-Society filed his counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition stating that since the building, in which the Society is functioning, is in dilapidated condition and is being submerged due to floods in Godavari river, the records, fertilizers and seeds are getting damaged, and therefore, they requested Mallavaramlanka Grampanchayat to allot suitable land, vested in them for construction of new building, and Mallavaramlanka Grampanchayat, having accepted their request, passed a resolution on 18.07.2007 allotting an extent of 242 Sq. Yards of site in R.S. No. 373/1 of Mallavaramlnaka village for construction of office building of the Society. In pursuance thereof, the Sarpanch of the Mallavaramlanka Grampanchayat executed a registered settlement deed dated 13.08.2007 in favour of their Society. It is further stated that based on the request made by their Society, respondent No.4- B a n k granted Rs.4,75,000/- under the scheme of ICDP (Interior Cooperative Development Project). It is stated that though the General Body Meeting was called for on 29.09.2007, no meeting was held due to lack of quorum, and subsequently, the Society has passed a resolution on 06.10.2007 proposing to construct society building in the site allotted by the Mallavaramlanka Grampanchayat. Thereupon, they started construction of the building in the 3rd week of October 2007, and construction was completed up to the slab level, and when preparations are being made for laying the slab, the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained interim directions on 29.11.2007. It is further stated that he came to know about the stay orders granted by this Court only through the notice affixed on the society building on 06.12.2007, and immediately he stopped the construction of the building. He further states that out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 4.75 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 2.37 lakhs has been released by the Bank, which has been spent for constructing the building and the remaining amount will be released by the Bank for the completing the balance work, and in view of the stay orders granted by this Court, the Bank is not releasing the amount, and as such, the construction work has come to a standstill. It is further stated that immediately after receiving the interim orders from this Court on 06.12.2007, they stopped further constructions, but the petitioner, taking advantage of the constructions already made up to slab level, has filed the present contempt case on 12.12.2007, as if they have started the constructions recently and proceeding with the same after receiving the interim orders. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 it is stated that the distance between Mallavaram and Mallavaramlanka is about 1 ½ KMs only, but not 5 KMs as contended by the petitioner, and that though Mallavaram and Mallavaramlanka are separate Grampanchayats they are within the Mallavaram Revenue village and are in the operational jurisdiction of respondent No.2-Society. It is further stated that since the distance between Mallavaram village and the proposed place of construction is less than 2 KMs there would be not much trouble to the members of the society for their day to day business transactions. It is further stated that as seen from the Gram Panchayat Resolution No.18, dated 18.07.2007 of Mallavaramlanka Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat resolved to allot an extent of 200 Sq. Yards of site in R.S. No. 373/1, which is classified as Village Site in the revenue records, to Mallavaram PACC Society for construction of its new office room and godown, but the construction of new office building and godown of the Society was actually started and completed upto lintel level in R.S. No. 373/2, which is classified as Cart Track in the revenue records. It is further stated that the PACC Society, Mallavaram, has not applied for alienation of any land in favour of their society for the proposed construction and as the village site and the Cart Track Porambokes are vested in the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat might have allotted the site to respondent No.2-Society, Mallavaram for construction of building. It is further stated that in fact respondent No.6 Gram Panchayat has no right to allot the land to respondent No.2-Society and respondent No.2-Society cannot construct the office building in the site in R.S. No. 373/2 without alienating the land in their favour by the competent authority. It is stated that respondent No.5 has no knowledge about the circumstances that led to the construction of the office building in the new site leaving their own site, however, immediately on receipt of the interim orders passed by this Court, he stopped the further construction of the Society building and obtained a certificate from the President of the Society to that effect. Respondent No.4-Bank filed its counter stating that respondent No.2-Society made a request to the Chief Project Officer, ICDP for financial assistance in the form of loan to construct office-cum-godown building in an extent of 242 Sq. Yards in R.S. No. 373/1, and based on the said request and the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of respondent No.2-Society dated 28.08.2007, respondent No.4-Bank has sanctioned loan of Rs.4,75,000/- under the ICDP, and out of which an amount of Rs.2,37,500/- has been released to respondent No.2-Society, vide reference No.ICDP/ELR-G40/2007, dated 26.10.2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 9, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.5, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7, and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent No.8. Though the petitioner contends that respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat has no power to allot the land in question to respondent No.2-society for construction of the building, as the said land does not belong to them, as is evident from the counter of respondent No.5- Mandal Revenue Officer, the fact remains, it is matter between respondent No.5 and respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat to decide, and at any rate, respondent No.5-Mandal Revenue Officer, having not taken any objection to the construction of the building by respondent No.2-society, no person, much less the petitioner can have any grievance. Though the petitioner contends that Mallavaram Lanka where the society building is being constructed by respondent No.2-society, is without the approval of the General Body of the society, and that the building is far away at a distance of 5 K.Ms. from Mallavaram village, the same is disputed by respondent No.2-society, and it is the specific case of respondent No.2-society, that the General Body meeting was called for 29.11.2007, but the same could not be held as there was no quorum. Subsequently, on 06.10.2007, the General Body met and passed a resolution for construction of the society building in the site allotted by Mallavarmlanka Grampanchayat. However, as the petitioner seriously disputed about the passing of the resolution by the General Body, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-society, agreed that they will hold a general body meeting to ascertain the willingness of the members to construct society building at the new place and produce the resolution to be passed in the meeting before the Court, for which learned counsel for the petitioner also expressed no objection. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation produced a letter dated 26.02.2008, addressed by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Bhimavaram, wherein it is stated that when a general body meeting was convened on 23.02.2008, the petitioner and the members of the society obstructed the proceeding of the general body for ascertaining the majority opinion, resultantly the quorum was not recorded. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner along with his supporters did not co-operate in the conduct of the general body meeting of respondent No.2-society on 23.02.2008. He having failed to make use of the opportunity provided to him cannot contend that there is no resolution for the construction of the building at Mallavaram lanka. Be that as it may, whether the society building should be constructed at Mallavaram lanka or Mallavaram village, is a matter for the members of the society to decide, and the members of the society, keeping in view their larger interests, are said to have passed a resolution on 06.10.2007 for construction of the society building at Mallavaram lanka, and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not interfere with such decision taken by the members of the society and direct the society to construct its building at a place chosen by one of its members. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. Even though the petitioner filed the contempt case contending that respondent No.2-society has violated the order of this Court dated 29.11.2007, the fact remains, it is the specific case of respondent No.2- society that they have commenced construction of the building in the 3rd week of October, 2007, and immediately upon receiving the interim orders of this Court on 06.12.2007, they stopped the construction. Be that as it may, now that the writ petition itself has been held to be liable to be dismissed, no contempt, much less willful contempt of the orders of the Court, can be alleged against respondent No.2-society, and more so when immediately upon knowing of the interim order, it stopped the construction work. In the result, both the writ petition as well as the contempt case are dismissed. No costs. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 26th June, 2008 KSR