IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15513 of 2003 Between: 1 Mudragada Rajendra Prasad s/o Mallaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 2 Pokkula Sarangapani s/o Sammaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 3 Khannam venkataswamy s/o Mallaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 5 Mudragada Venkataswamy s/o mallaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct 8 pusa Mellesham S/o Yellaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct 10 Gabbeti Kumaraswamy s/o Rajaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 11 Gabbeti Krishna Murthy S/o Rajaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 12 Deshaboina Komurelli, s/o Rajaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 13 Deshaboina Narsimha Swamy s/o Rajaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 14 Nagula Rajamallu s/o Venkataiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 15 Rasakatla Rajender S/o Ramulu R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 16 Dabbeta Veeraswamy S/o Mallaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 17 Madgada Venkataiah s/o Chandraiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 18 Maku Triupathi s/o Venkataswamy R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 19 Rasakatla Narayanaswamy s/o Ramaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 20 Rasakatla Naryanaswamy S/o Ramaiah, Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparti Mandal, Warangal Dist., 21 Kanam Ram Murthy s/o Mallaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 22 Barkam Sambamurthy s/o Buchaiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. 23 Kaparaboina Sammaiah S/o Komuraiah R/o Pegadapalli Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal Distirct. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Commissioner of Fisheries, Mastya Bhavan, Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad. 2 Asst, Director of Fisheries Warangal, Warangal District. 3 The District Collector, Subedari, Warangal District. 4 Fishermen Co. operative Society, rep by Prsident, Pegadapally Village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal District. .....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 issue Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the show cause notice of the 2nd respondent vide R.C. No. 1182?B/2003 dt 17-07-2003 is bad arbitrary and contrary to provisions of A.P. Co. operative Societies act, 1964 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as members of the Fishermen Co.operative Society, Pegadipalli Village Hasanparthi Mandal Warangal District Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15513 of 2003 O R D E R: The petitioners herein are the members of the 4th respondent-Co-operative Society. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice dated 17-07-2003 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 21-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified from membership of the society as arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has no power or authority under the Act to issue the impugned notice since the removal of a disqualified or ineligible member of the society can be ordered only by the General body under Section 21(3) of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioners herein were found to be not residing in the village and therefore, they incurred a disqualification and accordingly, the 4th respondent-society was asked to take steps. Since the 4th respondent failed to respond, the impugned notice was issued by the Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 21-A of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that Section 21-A of the Act deals with disqualification of membership of a committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioners are not members of a committee. The allegation is that the petitioners are not residents of the village and therefore, they are not qualified to continue as members of the 4th respondent-society. If that be so, the remedy is only under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act, which provides that such a disqualified member shall be removed by the general body by its own motion or on a representation made to it by any member of the society. Thus, it is clear that the impugned notice issued under Section 21-A of the Act for removal of the petitioners on the ground of alleged disqualification is illegal. Accordingly, the impugned notice is hereby set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to take appropriate steps afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 18-12-2008 KLP