THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22985 of 2007 Date:24.02.2011 Between: Kaki Bhairava Murthy ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Cooperation Counsel for Respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was elected as President of respondent No.4 society. By proceedings dated 16.10.2007, respondent No.3 declared the petitioner as having been disqualified to be a member of the managing committee of respondent No.4 society under Section 21-A (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) as he was in default in payment of amounts due to respondent No.4 society. The primary ground on which these proceedings are challenged is that even according to the respondents, the petitioner was only a surety and co-executant to the loan availed by his daughter Kaki Hemalatha and that the petitioner cannot be treated as a defaulter. It is the further case of the petitioner that even before the show-cause notice was issued on 03.10.2007, all the three loan amounts were repaid on 27.09.2007. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the fact that the petitioner was only a surety and co-executant has not been disputed. It is averred that all the loan amounts were discharged by the petitioner even before the show-cause notice was issued to him and he submitted his explanation with a request to drop further action. The above noted facts would reveal that the petitioner was not the principal borrower, but he was only a surety and co-executant for the loans obtained by his daughter. At any rate, under Section 21-A (b) of the Act, a person incurs disqualification to continue as member of the managing committee if he is in default in payment of any amount due in cash or kind to the society. This provision does not indicate the point of time at which the default should subsist for the member to incur disqualification. The fact that all the three loans for which the petitioner stood as surety were repaid even before the impugned proceedings were issued is admitted by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned proceedings disqualifying the petitioner as the President of respondent No.4 society are not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the same cannot be sustained in law. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 01.11.2007 as extended on 29.11.2007 is vacated and W.V.M.P.No.3408 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.29955 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th February, 2011 GHN