THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15445 of 2005 Dated: 02-12-2005 Between: The Fisherman Co-operative Society, Gardepalli Rep. By its President Pradhani Veera Swamy, Nalgonda District and three others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries Hyderabad and 7 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15445 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent-Assistant Director of Fisheries, Suryapet, dated 07-07-2005 whereunder the first petitioner was informed that a General Body Meeting of the Fisheries Co-operative Society, Gardepalli would be held on 16-07-2005, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). The first petitioner is a Fisherman Co-operative Society and the petitioners 2 to 4 claim to be the Directors of the first petitioner-society. It is stated that the first petitioner- society, which was registered under the Act in the year 1981, consists of 189 members and the area of operation of the society covers two tanks namely ‘Tallacheruvu’ and ‘Ravi Cheruvu’. The elections to the Managing Committee of the Society were conducted on 24-01-2002 and the elected Managing Committee, consisting of nine Directors headed by the President has been functioning in accordance with law. The General Body meeting as well as the Managing Committee meetings were conducted as per the bye-laws of the society. While so, the third respondent – Assistant Director of Fisheries issued the impugned notice dated 07-07-2005 convening an Emergency General Body Meeting on 16-07-2005 at 12.00 p.m. The said notice mentions that in pursuance of the complaint received by one Pradani Saidulu (the former President of the Society) the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Nalgonda directed to conduct necessary enquiry and to submit a report, and therefore the General Body Meeting is convened to enquire into the following issues: 1. That the President of the society from the date of his election has been indulging in acts which are detrimental to the interests of the society and that he failed to convene General Body Meetings and Managing Committee Meetings. 2. Failed to account the income of the society out of exercising fishing rights in the tanks situated within the area of operation of the society. 3. To take a decision about the payment of arrears of lease amounts and to take a policy decision about the exercising of the fishing rights. The petitioners contend that the allegation that the President failed to convene a meeting is incorrect and without any basis. It is further stated that under Section 32 of the Act, the Registrar or a person authorized by him can call for a General Body Meeting only when the person or the committee authorized under bye-laws failed to convene a General Body Meeting. Since in the instant case, such a situation did not arise, the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the Assistant Director of Fisheries filed a counter-affidavit stating that some of the members of the first petitioner-society made a representation requesting to make necessary enquiry against the Managing Committee, as the members of the Managing Committee were not properly functioning. Basing on the said representation, the Assistant Director of Fisheries issued impugned notice dated 07-07-2005 informing that an emergency General Body Meeting would be conducted on 16-07-2005 to enquire and sort out the problems and to take necessary steps for Fasli 1414 (2004-2005). It is also stated that the main object of calling for the General Body Meeting in the capacity of Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is only to sort out the problems, to create harmony among the members and to take necessary steps to harvest the fishery wealth after collecting the lease amount and they never intended to interfere with the affairs of the Managing Committee of the Society. It is asserted that the Assistant Director, in the capacity of Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is competent to call for a General Body Meeting and to check the affairs of Fishermen Co-operative Society and to inspect the books of accounts and to interact with the members of the society to find out their problems if any. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The respondents 4 to 8, who also claim to be the Directors of the 1st petitioner Society, got themselves impleaded as parties to the writ petition and filed a counter affidavit stating that they along with other members submitted a representation dated 14-06-2005 bringing to the notice of all the officials of the Fisheries Department that the President of the society was not conducting General Body Meeting and that he also failed to conduct the Managing Committee Meeting since the beginning. They also alleged that first respondent-society was not at all showing the accounts to the members nor distributing profits to its members. On the basis of the said representation, the Assistant Director of Fisheries issued the impugned notice dated 07-07-2005 convening a General Body Meeting in which the reasons for convening the meeting were also specifically mentioned. The plea of the petitioners that a General Body Meeting was convened on 20-03-2005 has been specifically denied and it was reiterated that the President of the Society failed to conduct meetings as per the bye-laws and the provisions of the Statute. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 32 of the Act, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in issue runs as under : 32. General meetings and committee meetings: ((1) the Committee may, at any time, call a general meeting of a society, but such meeting shall be held within six months of the end of the Co-operative Year. (1-A) if the general meeting is not convened in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the members of the Committee shall cease to hold office on the day next after the 1st day on which the general meeting should have been held, and it shall be competent for the Registrar, notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws, to call such general meeting in such manner as may be prescribed.) It is to be noted that under Section 32 of the Act, the Managing Committee may, at any time call not less than two General Body Meetings of a society in a co-operative year. However, one meeting shall be held in each half year. As per sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act, the committee shall call a General Body Meeting of the Society within thirty days of the date of receipt of a requisition in writing from the members of the society, Finance Bank to which the society is indebted, a federal society to which the society is affiliated or the Registrar. However, sub-section (3) of Section 32 provides that it shall be the duty of the President of the society to call the meetings of the committee so that at least one meeting of the committee is held in every three months and if the President fails to discharge that duty, he shall, with effect from the date of expiration of one month, cease to be the President. It is also relevant to note that under sub-section (1-A) of Section 32, if the General Body Meeting is not convened in accordance with the provisions of sub Section (1), the members of the committee shall cease to hold office and it shall be competent for the Registrar, notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws, to call such General Body Meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. In the case on hand, as can be seen from the impugned notice, one of the reasons on which the General Body Meeting of the society was convened was that the President of the society failed to convene the General Body Meeting of the society from the date of his election. It is true that the petitioners claim that such a meeting was conducted on 20-03-2005 however, the impleaded respondents 4 to 8 who are also the Directors of the society dispute the same and state that no such meeting was conducted. If that be so, it is for the 3rd respondent Registrar who is the ex officio Registrar to make necessary enquiry and he is also competent to convene a General Body Meeting as required under sub- section (1-A) of Section 32. Hence, I am unable to hold that the impugned notice is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that whenever there are any allegations against the petitioners, the only procedure to be followed is by initiating an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and to take necessary action after following the due process of law, but the Registrar on his own cannot convene a General Body Meeting. I am unable to agree with the said contention +since under the provisions of the Act, the Registrar is also conferred with the power of superintendence to monitor the affairs of the society. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Registrar is not competent to convene a General Body Meeting so as to inquire into the allegations against the Managing Committee. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI,J 02-12-2005 klp