IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22683 of 2008 Between: 1 P. Siva Venkata Narayana S/o. Venkateshwarlu Peddakallepalli, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna Dist. 2 A. Venkateshwara Rao S/o. Veera Swamy Peddakallepalli, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna Dist. 3 T. Rama Krishna Rao S/o. Subba Rao, Annavaram Hamlet of Peddakallepalli Peddakallepalli, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna Dist. 4 D. Srinivas Rao S/o. Musalaiah Venkatapuram, Hamlet of Peddakallepalli, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Societies Machilipatnam, Krishna Dist. 2 The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Rep. by its Secretary Peddakallepalli, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of issuance of impugned Notices issued by the 1st respondent under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S. Rules 1964 in his proceedings Rc.No.1393 / 2008 / D dt.29-09-2008 to the petitioners herein as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of Law & unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners are the members of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Peddakallepalli, the second respondent. They feel aggrieved by a notice, dated 29.09.2008, issued by the ﬁrst respondent. The petitioners were directed to explain as to why they shall not be treated as having incurred disqualiﬁcation and ceased to be the members of the Managing Committee. It was alleged that the petitioners have committed default in repayment of the loan. The petitioners contend that they have cleared all the dues and even no dues certiﬁcate was also issued to them. It is their case that the ﬁrst respondent does not have the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings, and that it is for the general body of the society to initiate steps to disqualify any member. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the ﬁrst respondent is not conferred with the power to determine the cessation of members. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court i n K.Anjaneyulu v. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hindupur[1], learned counsel submits that the default must be in existence as on the date of issuance of notice and viewed from that angle, the petitioners cannot be treated as defaulters. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners cannot be said to have suﬀered any detriment now, since what is issued is only a show cause notice. It is stated that the petitioners can work out their remedies, if any order adverse to their interests is passed. The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder provide, inter alia, for disqualiﬁcation of members from holding elected posts. They occur under diﬀerent circumstances. The commission of default in payment of loans by the persons is one such instance. Rule 24(4) of the Rules clearly confers the power on the general body of the society to decide whether or not a member had incurred disqualification. The ﬁrst respondent is not conferred with any power, in this regard. Even assuming that he is discharging the functions as Registrar under Section 4(2) of the Act, he has to make a speciﬁc mention of the same, and indicate the circumstances under which he has exercised. It also becomes debatable as to whether the ﬁrst respondent can exercise such powers, when the Act and the Rules speciﬁcally confer the same on a diﬀerent agency. The impugned show cause notice is patently without jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside. It is, however, left open upon the concerned authorities under the Act and the Rules to take necessary steps vis-à-vis the petitioner, in case they intend to. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.20.10.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ [1] AIR 1994 NOC 190 (AP)