THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 12064 of 2007 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by three members of the 3rd respondent Co-operative Society, challenging the validity of the notice, dated 6th June 2007 issued by the 1st respondent, proposing to convene the meeting of the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent on 20th June 2007 for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion delivered against the President of the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent Society and appointing the 2nd respondent to preside over the said meeting. It is stated that the petitioners are the members of the 3rd respondent Co-operative Society and at the relevant point of time, it has got a strength of 16 members. It is stated that on 23rd November 2004, the members of the Society met and unanimously elected its President, Secretary and three Directors. Accordingly, they were elected unopposed at the said meeting. The present Order has been passed by the 1st respondent on 6th June 2007 in terms of Section 34- A(3) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’). The only question that needed to be answered is whether the said notice issued by the 1st respondent is in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 34-A of the Act. Section 34-A has been inserted by the Amending Act No. 21 of 1985, providing for consideration of a motion of no-confidence on the President and Vice- President of the Committee. Sub-section (1) of Section 34-A made it clear that a motion expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President of a Committee may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said Section. Sub-section (2) thereof made it clear that a motion signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the committee together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person, by any two of the members signing the notice, to the Registrar having jurisdiction over the Society. Sub-section (3) then makes it clear that the Registrar shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion, not later than 30 days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him. The Registrar was also required to give the members notice of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting. However, sub- section (14) of Section 34-A of the Act made it clear that the provisions of this Section shall not apply in respect of a President of any Co-operative Society elected by the members of the general body from amongst themselves. Two infirmities can be noticed from the order passed by the 1st respondent – Registrar in this case. Firstly, he has not tried to ascertain before issuing the said notice as to whether the President of the Society has been elected by the general body at its meeting or not. As was noticed supra, if the President of the Society has been elected by the general body of the Society, in such circumstances, sub-section (14) would come into operation, and consequently, the provisions contained in Section 34-A of the Act will not be attracted at all. Therefore, it is incumbent for the 1st respondent – Registrar to ascertain before acting upon any notice delivered to him under sub- section (2) of Section 34-A and find out whether the President of the Managing Committee of the Society has been elected by the general body at their meeting or the Managing Committee in turn had elected him. If the general body elected the President, then he cannot entertain and take further action in terms of Section 34-A on the motion of no-confidence delivered to him. The 2nd infirmity is that sub-section (3) requires the Registrar, upon receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), to give to the members notice of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting. The impugned notice is dated 6th January 2007 and it has proposed to convene the meeting on 20th June 2007. The meeting in the instant case has been called exactly on the 15th day from 6th June 2007, whereas sub-section (3) requires him to give notice to the members of not less than 15 clear days. The emphasis is clearly laid on the words “15 clear days”. In other words, the notice itself should provide 15 clear days duration, obviously implying that a meeting is required to be conducted any time between the 16th to 30th day, because within 30 days, the meeting is required to be convened. Hence, the day on which the notice is drawn out by the Registrar has got to be excluded so as to comply with the requirement of 15 clear days. This 15 clear days period is not required to be maintained from the date of service of such a notice, as the notice may be served, during the interregnum period. Therefore, compliance with the mandate of 15 clear days can be achieved by excluding either the date on which the notice is drawn or in the alternative, the date on which the meeting is convened. In the instant case, for the failure to give 15 clear days’ notice, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 34-A also, the impugned order fails. The impugned notice, dated 6th June 2007 issued by the 1st respondent is hence quashed. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 14th November 2009 Note: LR copy to be marked. ksld