WP/4364/2006 of The Fishermen Co-op. Society, Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries, on 22 December 2006

Conclusion

ORDER:

The petitioner, a Fishermen Cooperative Society in Penchikal Dinne village ofNalgonda District, through its President, has filed this Writ Petition seeking Writ ofMandamus, to declare notice No.1/MA.AA.AA/Tu/2006, dated 2-3-2006 issued bythe fourth respondent-Fisheries Development Officer as illegal and arbitrary.

In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioner- society was registered in the year 1982 under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act,1964 and there are about 80 members in the society. Time to time, elections werebeing conducted to the Managing Committee and lastly elections were held and theterm of the said committee expired on 23-03-2005. It is further stated that as per theby-laws of the society, the elected managing committee of the society had convenedGeneral Body Meeting on 20-03-2005 and elections were conducted to theManaging Committee and basing on the same, list of elected members wasforwarded to the Deputy Director of Fisheries on 12-4-2005. However, in view of therepresentation filed by the fifth respondent, impugned notice dated 02-03-2006 isissued by the fourth respondent-Fisheries Development Officer. It is the case of thepetitioner that as much as elections were already conducted by the committee,which was elected previously, in the General Body meeting held on 20-03-2005,there is no authority or jurisdiction for the respondents to conduct enquiry with regardto election dispute.

Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, stating that there are tworival groups in the society and one group elected one Sri Y.Narsaiah as Presidentand other group elected Sri N.Nagaiah as President. It is stated that there isconfusion with regard to the groups having majority and elected as President of thesociety. As such, instructions were issued by the Deputy Director of Fisheries to theAssistant Director of Fisheries to call for General Body Meeting, decide and reportcompliance. It is further stated that impugned notice dated 2-3-2006 is issued todecide the dispute with regard to election and to finalize the majority for collection oflease amount.

Separate counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent-impleaded party stating thatas much as elections were not conducted to the managing committee, he had takeninitiative and convened general body meeting on 19-3-2005, in which he waselected as President apart from eight members as members of the managingcommittee of the society.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, it is clearly statedthat in view of the rival claim with regard to conduct of elections to the managingcommittee of the society, impugned notice is issued to conduct General Bodymeeting to ascertain majority. Under the scheme of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act,1964 and rules made thereunder, in absence of any requisition by the society toconduct elections by an officer, there is no such power conferred on the FisheriesDevelopment Officer or any other officer to conduct General Body meeting toascertain majority. There is prescribed procedure to conduct elections under Rule22 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. Though it is stated by the learnedCounsel appearing for the respondents that impugned notice is issued only to verifythe records with regard to elections conducted, but however, from the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, it is clear that all the electedmembers were asked to present, to ascertain the majority. Precisely it is nothing butconducting of elections to the society, which is without jurisdiction. As per the by-laws of the society also, the Managing Committee alone is competent to holdelections by convening General Body Meeting. In the counter affidavit filed by thefifth respondent, though it is his case that as much as the elected managingcommittee had not convened general body meeting, he himself had convened general body meeting on 19-3-2005, but however, in the material papers filed byhim, he had filed a copy of the representation, which was addressed to the DeputyDirector of Fisheries, in which it was stated that general body meeting wasconvened on 24-2-2006, which shows discrepancy with regard to date mentioned inthe counter affidavit to that of the date mentioned in the representation filed beforethe Deputy Director of Fisheries. Further, he did not show any authority either underthe A.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1964 or by-laws of the society to hold elections onhis own. In that view of the matter, the fifth respondent had no authority to conveneGeneral Body Meeting to hold elections. In any event, if there is any dispute withregard to election, which is stated to have been held on 19-03-2005, it is for theaggrieved party to question before the competent forum notified as per theprovisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and, on mere representationby the fifth respondent, either Assistant Director of Fisheries or FisheriesDevelopment Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to decide election dispute. Areading of impugned notice coupled with counter affidavit, makes it clear that thesaid notice is issued to convene General Body Meeting to ascertain majority, whichis, precisely, nothing but holding elections to the managing committee of the society.In that view of the matter, impugned notice dated 2-3-2006 is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, notice No.1/MA.AA.AA/Tu/2006, dated 2-3-2006 issued by the fourthrespondent-Fisheries Development Officer is set aside.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

---------------------------------------

JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

DATED: 22-12-2006.

Msnr