THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.19845 of 2009 19th January, 2010 Between :- C.Narasimhudu .. Petitioner And The Deputy Director of Fisheries/ Ex-Officio Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Kurnool and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.19845 of 2009 ORDER:- This Court ordered notice before admission on 12-10-2009. 2. 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit . 3. Heard the Counsel on record. 4. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus dealing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in ROC.No.784/D/2009, dt.28-8- 2009 in issuing notice of No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner herein without there being reason as illegal, ay and violation of the provisions of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and consequently set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the President of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Kothacheruvu and the petitioner was elected as President unanimously on 2-4-2008 and in that society there were 113 fishermen as members and all of them elected the petitioner as President and constituted a body constituting Secretary, Vice President and Directors and several other further facts also had been narrated. 6. It is further stated that while so, some irregularities occurred in agreements with third parties and some of the members of the society objected the same and they made representations dt.30-7-2009 to the respondents. The 1st respondent responded on the representation of the members, issued proceedings No.1363/D/2009, dt.26-8-2009 directing the 2nd respondent to conduct inspection and submit report on or before 30-9-2009. 7. Further it is stated that surprisingly, the petitioner received a notice from the 2nd respondent calling him to attend the No Confidence Motion conducted on 18-9-2009 at 10.00 a.m., and he came to know that some of the Directors moved resolution without informing any of the members and submitted a proposal for No Confidence Motion on him to the 2nd respondent. On responding of the said proposal, the 2nd respondent issued present notice dt.28-8-2009 without enquiring the matter. 8. It is further averred that the 2nd respondent without following the directions of the 1st respondent in inspecting the society and submitted a report, even though, there is a clear direction from the 2nd respondent to avoid the same the 2nd respondent issued the present No Confidence Motion notice to the petitioner by colluding with some of the Office Bearers of the society to deviate the irregularities occurred in the society due to activities of the Directors. 9. Further it is also averred that the petitioner is an innocent of any allegations made by the Directors. Due to local politics, No Confidence Motion resolution was moved even without entering in Minutes Book maintained by the society and without informing to the members of the society. Due to the act of some of the Directors, the reputation of the society and function of the society would be effected. Total members were against to the present resolution and they represented the higher Officers with regard to the same. 10. It is also further stated that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent are silent about the reasoning of No Confidence except simply referring the resolution dt.10-8-2009. The petitioner is not a disqualified person as per the Cooperative Societies Act, if there are any allegations against the existing body, that may be solved by the 2nd respondent after inspecting the society as per the orders of the 1st respondent dt.26-8-2009. Instead of doing so, issuing notice of No Confidence Motion is illegal, ay and violative of Cooperative Societies Act,1964. It is also stated that due to the acts of the unscrupulous elements, the members are suffering untold misery and they will put irreparable loss and they lost their livelihood due to the proposed motion of execution of no-confidence. 11. Specific stand had been taken that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy and hence the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that it is true that the Managing Committee members indulged community irregularities in catching into agreements with third parties and this was objected by some of the members of the Managing Committee members. As per the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, the Fishermen Cooperative Society members only have to catch the fish in their tanks, whereas the Managing Committee members lease out to the 3rd parties for 3 years and all the members of Managing Committee i.e., the President, Vice President, Secretary and other Directors signed the agreement. The society members only have to catch the fish to get their livelihood by catching the fish in the tank and it is meant for the welfare of the poor fishermen without the knowledge of the members of the society, all the Managing Committee members, leased out the fishery wealth in the tank of the Kothacheruvu and made the members of the society put to loss. Due to this, the fishermen forgo their livelihood. Keeping in view of the above opinion, the 1st respondent issued the proceedings to the 2nd respondent to conduct inspection and submit report on or before 30-9-2009 vide Memo No.1363/D/2009, dt,26-8-2009. 13. Further it is stated that this office had issued a notice to the President, Fishermen Cooperative Society, Kothacheruvu for No- Confidence Motion fixing the date on 18-9-2009 at 10.00 a.m., basing on the resolution passed by the Managing Committee members of the Kothacheruvu. But it is not true that the President had knowledge about passing of the resolution by the Managing Committee. 14. It is also stated that the 1st respondent had given the directions to the 2nd respondent to give a detailed report by verifying the records of the society vide Memo No.1363/D/2009, dt.26-8-2009. Simultaneously the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kurnool issued necessary instructions on behalf of Ex-Officio Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, if the conditions of No-Confidence Motion under Section 34A of the APCS Act VII of 1964 are fulfilled. In pursuance of the same, this office issued a notice stating that No- Confidence Motion had been move by the 5 members of the Managing Committee by fixing the date on 18-9-2009 at 10.00 a.m., according that No-Confidence Motion was moved/convened on 18-9-2009 at 10.00 a.m. and 5 Directors have been attended out of seven Managing Committee members. The President and one Director were not attended. The 5 Directors moved the motion of No-Confidence against the President and all of them unanimously passed resolution in favour of No-Confidence Motion and resolved to remove the President with 2/3rd majority under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly the proceedings had been issued for removal of Sri C.Narasimhudu from the post of President, Fishermen Cooperative Society, Kothacheruvu under Section 31-A (11) of the APCS Act 1964. 15. It is also stated that all the members of the Managing Committee had signed as the agreement for leasing out the Kothacheruvu tank to the 3rd party and other allegations made by the petitioner is not true and correct and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. 16. It is further stated that the Ex-President of the society had not produced the society records either to the Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, Dharmavarm not to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Anantapur, inspite of several request made by the Asst.Inspector of Fisheries, Dharmavaram and they are blaming on each other of the Ex-President and present President and passed the time without producing the records and also it is caused not to inspect the records as per the direction of the Deputy Director of Fisheries,Kurnool as per memo No.1363/D/2009 dt.26-8-2009 and 28-8-2009, the petitioner had deliberately disobeyed the instructions issued by the respondents for production of the records to not cared the misleads committed by him as President of the society. 17. Further specific stand had been taken that after completion of the No-Confidence Motion process, the petitioner was removed as President of the society and the then Vice President was elected as President of the society and had taken charge of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Kothacheruvu. In view of the facts and circumstances, it was stated that the Writ Petition being devoid of merit, the same to be dismissed. 18. In the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the stand taken in the counter affidavit , this Court is satisfied that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to pursue the other appropriate remedies available to him in Law if the petitioner is so advised. 19. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 19th January, 2010 smr