IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22576 of 2008 Between: 1 G.Kanaka Raju S/o. G.Prabhakar R/o. Masulipatnam, Krishna District 2 K.sreemannarayana S/o. Venkata Chalapathi Rao R/o. Masulipatnam, Krishna District 3 A.Venkateswara Rao S/o. Veera Swamy R/o. Masulipatnam, Krishna District 4 N.Peddulu S/o. Muthyalu Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. by Secretary, Co-operative and Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Masulipantnam, Krishna district. .....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 to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus (a) declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not informing the members of Machilipatnam Postal and Grammena Dak Sevaks Employees Co-operative Credist Society aboutr the no conﬁdence motion meeting schedule to be held on 21.10.2008 at 3.00 P.M. in the Machilipatnam Postal and Grammena Dak Sevaks Employees Co-operative Credit Society's oﬃce as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Sec 34(A) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rule 24(A) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Rules 1964 adn ; (b) consequently direct the 2nd respodnent to inform all the members of the Machilipatnam Postal and Grameena Dak Sevaks Employees Co-operative Credit Society about the no conﬁdence motion meeting strictly in accordance with Sec 34(A) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rule24(A) of the A.P.Co- operative Societies Rules, 1964 and ; (c) further direct the 2nd respodnet not to convene the meeting of no conﬁdence motion scheduled to be held on 21.10.2008 pursuant to impugned notice bearing Rc.No. 1640/2008/E dated 29-9-2008 without informing all the members of the society and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22576 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are the members of Machilipatnam Postal and Grameena Dak Sevaks Employees Co- operative Credit Society, Machilipatnam. The managing committee of the society comprises of 9 members, including the President. The Vice President and 6 members of the managing committee have submitted a representation, dated 24.09.2008, to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2nd respondent herein, with a request to convene the meeting of the managing committee to take up a motion of no conﬁdence against the President. Acting on the same, the 2nd respondent issued notice, dated 29.09.2008, proposing to convene the meeting of the managing committee on 21.10.2008. The petitioners challenge the same. They contend that the 2nd respondent is under obligation to issue notices to all the members of the society and that he did not comply with Rule 24-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules (for short ‘the Rules’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation. Section 34-A of the Co-operative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the relevant Rules contain the procedure to be followed in moving or taking up the motions of no conﬁdence, against the President or Vice President of the society. The Vice-President and six members have submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent with a request to convene the meeting to discuss the motion of no conﬁdence. Sub-Section (3) of Section 34-A of the Act mandates that a notice of not less than 15 clear days shall be issued to the members, before convening the meeting. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the requirement under this provision is the service of notice on the members of the general body and not conﬁned to the members of the managing committee. It is too diﬃcult to accept this contention. The members of the general body hardly have any role in the meetings convened for taking up the motions of no conﬁdence. It is only the members of the committee, that are entitled to be served with notices. Even as regards them, the requirement of 15 days is only the one between the date of notice and the date of meeting and not the one between the date of service of notice and the date of meeting. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Rule 24-A of the Rules, which prescribes the procedure for service of notices. Apart from directing service of notices personally or through registered post, the Rule mandates that the copies of notices be displayed in the villages or mandals, which are within the area of operation of the society. There is nothing on record to disclose that such a course was not adopted. At any rate, the persons, who can feel aggrieved by the violation of the said rule, can be the members of the managing committee and not the ordinary members of the general body. In the instant case, not a single member of the managing committee had complained that he did not receive the notice. At any rate, the petitioners already had the information about the proposed meeting of no conﬁdence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to admit the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.10.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22576 of 2008 Date: 17.10.2008 JSU