IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2447 of 2008 Between: Dudala Bagaiah, S/o Eswaraiah, Kolanupaka, R/o Kolanupaka, Alair Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise, Nalgonda. 2 The Asst.Registrar/Auditor, Bhongir-Election Officer, T.T.T.S., Ltd., Kolanupaka Alair Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 The Senior Co.op.Inspector, Excise, Nalgonda 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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in disqualifying the petitioner as President of the Toddy Tappers Co.operative Society, Kolanupaka, Alair Mandal, Nalgonda District, vide Rc.No.16/Co.op/2007 dated 21-1-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P.Co.operative Societies Act and rules and set aside the same and in violation of principles of natural justice consequently allow the petitioner as President of the said society and pass suchother order or orders as deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 2447 of 2008 Oral Order: Though an application for vacating the interim order is filed, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition itself. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Excise for respondents. The petitioner is a former President of the Toddy Tapers Co-operative Society, Kolanupaka, Alair Mandal, Nalgonda district. By the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 21-01-2008, in purported exercise of powers under Section 21 (A)(1)(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, the 1st respondent directed removal of the petitioner from the office of the President of the Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, Kolanupaka, Alair Mandal. Earlier, on 30-11-2007 the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that some members of the Alair Mandal and Kolanupaka village Kallugeetha Industrial Co-operative Society, in a petition dated 24-10-2007 had alleged that the petitioner was having three children contrary to the provisions of Section 21 (A)(1) (A) of the Act and an enquiry should be conducted. An enquiry thereupon was conducted pursuant to the orders of the District Collector, on 17-11-2007. This enquiry revealed that Kumari Dudala Swarna, Kumari Dudala Latha and Master Dudala Eswar, with the dates of birth 10-04-1997; 20-06-1999 and 20-07-2001 respectively were the children of the petitioner. On these facts stated the show cause notice was issued by the 1st respondent dated 30-11-2007 calling upon the petitioner to explain why he be not removed as the President of the Society. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 05-12-2007 clearly asserting that he fathered only two children and not the third. Thereupon the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 21-01-2008 and dealt with the explanation of the petitioner in a most perfunctory manner. In a classic illustration of non-application of mind and laconic decision making, the 1st respondent records thus: “Reference 6 above, as the explanation submitted by Sri Dudala Bagaiah is not satisfactory, as per Section 1964 Sec. 21-A-1-A Sri Dudala Bagaiah, s/o Dudala Eswaraiah, orders have been passed to remove him as President.” No reasons are vouchsafed as to why the explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory. The 1st respondent was exercising a quasi judicial function and recording of reasons is the fundamental postulate of a quasi judicial decision making process. ipse dixit shall not the normative behavior of quasi judicial authorities. The 1st respondent’s order impugned is totally bereft of reasons, is perverse and therefore unsustainable. The learned Government Pleader for Excise contended that the reasons why the petitioner’s explanation was found not satisfactory have been amply recorded in the counter affidavit. Reasons recorded in a counter affidavit are not a substitute for the reasons recorded in an impugned order, executive or quasi judicial. It is a settled principle that an administrative or quasi judicial order will have to be sustained on its own and not by what is stated in a counter affidavit later filed vide Commr., of Police v. Gordhandas1 and Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commr2. On the analysis above, the impugned order of the 1st respondent bearing RC. No. 16/Co.op/2007 dated 21-01-2008 is unsustainable. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Normally this Court could have quashed the impugned order with costs for the utter perversity of the order. Since the learned Government Pleader for Excise has fairly conceded the legal position, this Court deems it appropriate not to mulct the State with costs in this case. It is however now open to the respondents to pass a fresh order recording reasons for the conclusion. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 14-08-2008 pvks