IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 7280 of 2008 Between: The BHEL MIG Employees Coop. Housing Society Ltd., Regd No. TBC 655, Phase II, Ramachandra Puram, Hyderabad-502032. Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its President. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Honourable Minister for Cooperation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500004. 2 Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar of Coop. Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Gruhakalpa Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad-1. 3 Joint Registrar / District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. A.P. 4 Divisional Cooperative Officer, Hyderabad, West Division, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the letter No.789/2006/E, dt. 22.03.2008 of the 3rd respondent herein ie., Joint Registrar / District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad to the President of the BHEL MIG Employees Coop. Housing Society Ltd., Regd. No. TBC 655, Phase II, Ramachandra Puram, Hyderabad-502032, Ranga Reddy District, at the behest of the endorsement dt. 21.03.2008 of the 1st Respondent herein i.e., Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, as without jurisdiction, power or authority, abuse of process of law, violative of the provisions of Sec.32(1) of the AP Cooperative Societies Act 7 of 1964, besides offending the cardinal principles of natural justice and hence set aside. ii) to direct the respondents herein to see that the provisions of AP Cooperative Societies Act 7 of 1964 and the Rules framed thereunder are followed, while dealing with the representation dt. 20.03.2008 made to the 1st respondent herein i.e., Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, Govt. of AP, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.BHADRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Bhadram, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner is an Employees Cooperative Housing Society, which assails a communication of the 3rd respondent dated 22.3.2008. The communication per se makes an interesting reading and is as follows: “ As per the Endt. Dt.21.3.2008 of the Hon’ble Minister for Cooperation (Copy enclosed) on the joint representation given by (24) members of the society to postpone the Extra Ordinary G.B. Meeting to be held on 23.3.2008, the President of the Society is requested to postpone the aid Extra Ordinary G.B. Meeting to be held on 23.3.2008 at 9.30 A.M. until further orders”. A copy of the endorsement dated 21.3.2008 made by the 1st respondent on the basis of which the 3rd respondent issued the impugned order has also been communicated to the petitioner and is filed along with the writ petition. It would appear that some members of the petitioner-Cooperative Housing Society represented to the 1st respondent about certain illegal actions by the management of the petitioner-society. Thereupon, the first respondent appears to have made an endorsement calling upon the first respondent to examine and take immediate necessary action to stop the general body meeting and report compliance. On the basis of this directive by the political executive, the 3rd respondent exercising greater fidelity to the first respondent than to the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), issued the impugned order interdicting the process of internal democracy of the petitioner-society. The representation made to the 1st respondent by some members of the petitioner-society broadly allege that the President and Managing Committee of the society are misusing the society funds and bye-laws; that the B.H.E.L management had sanctioned 124.5 acres of land to BHEL employees for construction of houses through the aegis of the petitioner’s society; that the society had constructed 1923 houses, out of which 1558 houses fall under Tellapur Gram Panchayat limits and the remaining 365 within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, R.C. Puram Circle, Medak; and that the managing committee of the society was abusing its power and allotting plots in the name of defaulters to outsiders without the approval of the general body and in transgression of the society bye-laws. It is also alleged that the management was scheduling general body meetings under the guise of emergency general body meetings while most of the members are busy with their official functions and the management was contriving to pass resolutions to further mismanage the assets of the society. If the management of the petitioner-society is believed to be indulging in the activities alleged in the complaint by some of its members addressed to the official respondents, the official respondents and, in particular, the 2nd respondent or other officers who are entrusted with the regulatory functions under the Act have a plenitude of regulatory powers to initiate an enquiry into the alleged mal-administration, to suspend the management or to supersede the management, if any such mal-administration is established. It is however, not permissible to the official respondents, under the provisions of the Act, to interdict the normative democratic process of a cooperative society. The cooperative movement is structured on the fundamental premise that members of a society are entitled, within the spectrum of the policies enjoined or enabled by the provisions governing the Cooperative Societies Act and the bye-laws to make policy choices, which may be wise, unwise or otherwise. That is a choice available to all democratic enterprises. The Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not envisaged under the Act to be the Lord protector of the debates and discourses in the General Body meetings of cooperative societies. Such cromwellian assumptions by the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies have no basis in any provisions of the Act. If there be any mal-administration, misappropriation or defalcation or frittering away of the assets of the society by any conduct of the managing committee, even pursuant to any resolutions of the general body of the society, in a manner and to an extent prohibited by the provisions of the Act or are subversive of the lawful powers of the society, then and then alone is the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies empowered to exercise powers under the Act. Interdiction of the general body meeting appears to be a wholly impermissible exercise under the provisions of the Act. It has the potentiality of stifling democratic discourse, which is inconsistent with the limited powers of the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It is also distressing that the 3rd respondent exercising the powers of the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies is seen to be acting to the dictates of the 1st respondent without exercising independent judgment as to the appropriateness of exercising power under the provisions of the Act despite being a Statutory Authority. The impugned order refers to no provisions of the Act, which justify or legitimize a directive to the society not to hold or to adjourn the general body meeting. The learned Government Pleader also does not offer any valid justification for the exercise of the impugned power. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order must perish and is accordingly quashed. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, but with no order as to costs. ___________________ 4th April, 2008 GODA RAGHURAM, J vtv