1. Petitioners approached this Court seeking a mandamus challenging the proceedings, dated 17.01.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent through letter No.80/2024-C. These proceedings propose holding of a Managing Committee meeting on 09.02.2024 to discuss and conduct voting regarding ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the leadership of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Sirikonda (PACS). The relief sought includes declaring the mentioned proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional, contending that they violate Section 115-D and Section 34-A of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. Additionally, petitioners request to set aside the proceedings.
2. The 1st petitioner is President and the 2nd petitioner is Vice-President of PACS; they were elected during elections held on 16.02.2020, for five years. It is stated that Society serves the financial needs of farmers at the primary level and it plays a crucial role in protecting farmers from money lenders and involves its members in managing and running the Society. The Cooperative Societies, including the subject Society aim to provide financial aid to farmers and generate markets for agricultural produce without the intervention of the 3rd parties or political influences. Petitioners emphasize their unblemished record in serving the Society since the election and there have been no complaints regarding their performance.
The 3rd respondent District-Cooperative Officer / Joint Registrar for Cooperation, Nizamabad District utilising the authority conferred by Section 34-A of the Act, issued notices in authority conferred by Section 34-A of the Act, issued notices in Nizamabad District, specifically targeting PACS in Honnajipet, Dichpally, Sirikonda and Mugpal. Notices proposed a 'No Confidence Motion' against Presidents of the Societies including the 5th respondent Society for which petitioners were elected as President and Vice-President. Notices were served via letter dated 18.01.2024 along with the proposal received on 12.01.2024 from the Managing Committee members of the 5th respondent Society.
It is stated that the proposed 'No Confidence Motion' and the subsequent notice are in violation of the Act, particularly Section 34-A and Rule 24-A of the Rules framed thereunder. The proposal received by the 3rd respondent on 12.01.2024 is deemed non-compliance with the prescribed format under Form No. AAA (Rule 6-A(1)) which requires a requisition duly signed by elected members specifying the particulars of total elected members of the society and total number of members who signed the motion. Furthermore, the impugned notice dated 17.01.2024 is argued to be deficient in adhering to the mandatory requirements of Section 34-A of the Act and Rule 24-A. Additionally, absence of reasons for proposing 'No Confidence Motion' against President and Vice-President renders the purpose of the meeting on 09.02.2024 futile, as it amounts to removing elected members without specifying any fault on their part. Petitioners emphasize that in the absence of reasons, conducting a meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion' is against the principles of natural justice. Section 34-A is urged to be read in conjunction with Section 34, emphasising the necessity for assigning reasons and providing an opportunity when disqualifying a person from contesting or discontinuing membership in the society.
Petitioners express concern over the arbitrary nature of notices and proposal that allowing such motions without specifying reasons may lead to defeat the very purpose of elections and the legislative intent. The potential influence or majority wielded by certain individuals, for political reasons or ulterior motives, is argued to be inconsistent with the principles of fairness and natural justice.
Highlighting the utilisation of a revival package by the 5th respondent Society, petitioners contend that provisions of Section 115-D of the Act are applicable to the management and affairs of the Society. Given the smooth functioning of the 5th respondent society without contravening Section 115- D, intervention of the 3rd respondent is deemed unwarranted.
The potential repercussions of a change in the management, particularly in the positions of President and Vice-President of the 5th respondent Society may have a cascading effect on the management of the 4th respondent. As individuals, newly elected to the 5th respondent Society might initiate ‘No Confidence Motion', there exists a likelihood of similar motions being moved against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the District Cooperative Central Bank. Despite bifurcation of Nizamabad District into Kamareddy and Nizamabad Districts, establishment of the 4th respondent bank remains undivided. This undivided status has implications for elected candidates from Kamareddy District who are now members of the 4th respondent bank, indicating that their right to choose the management of their preference may be compromised.
Petitioners argue that the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 34-A of the Act coupled with Rule 24-A of the Rules. Drawing attention to a similar notice issued to Mugpal Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, it is highlighted that the 3rd respondent withdrew the notice based on a memorandum from the 2nd respondent indicating lack of proper approval or intimation. Likewise, notices to other societies, including Honnajipet Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited were also withdrawn. It is contended that the 3rd respondent lacks authority to issue impugned notice. Consequently, petitioners assert that in the prevailing circumstances, their only recourse is to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 submitted written instructions to the Government Pleader for Cooperation based on which, it is submitted that petitioners hold the positions of elected President and Vice President of PACS, Sirikonda. The Managing Committee members, numbering nine submitted ‘No Confidence Motion’ to the 3rd respondent seeking an expeditious meeting for its consideration. The notice was duly submitted in the prescribed format (Form AAA) with the CEO of the Society certifying the signatures of nine Managing Committee members. Contrary to the petitioner's claim that Section 34-A is not applicable, it is asserted that the Act provides the right to Managing Committee members to propose a ‘No Confidence Motion’, irrespective of their status as an Elected Chairman. It is stated that as per Rule 24-A(1), as soon as notice along with a copy of the Motion expressing no-confidence is received, the Registrar shall notwithstanding anything in the byelaws, convene a meeting of the committee. The 3rd respondent issued notice dated 17.01.2024 in accordance with this Rule, scheduling a meeting on 09.02.2024. The 3rd respondent is not involved in the affairs of the society as well as the bank and he discharged his duties in line with Section 34-A and Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules.
It is stated that in fact, the 3rd respondent authority is below the rank of Registrar of the Societies, hence, the CC & RCS has issued instructions to submit their proposals before initiating any statutory proceedings against the PACSs. for issue of necessary orders by the Registrar of Cooperative Society in case of urgency. Hence, notice issued under Section 34-A has been withdrawn vide proceedings dated 08.01.2024 but the government has delegated powers of Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the departmental authorities vide G.O.Ms.No. 1, dated 10.01.2024. Hence, the 3rd respondent has issued notice to the members of Managing Committee of PACS, Sirikonda to hold meeting on 'No confidence motion'.
4. Heard Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Ennamsetty Akhil, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Co-operation.
5. The main grievance of petitioners is, the proposed ‘No Confidence Motion' and subsequent notice are in violation of Section 34-A of the Act and Rule 24-A of the Rules framed thereunder. It is not in conformity with Form No. AAA (Rule 6-A(1)), whereunder a requisition has to be given by the elected members of the Society to move 'No Confidence Motion' duly signed by them in terms of the Act specifying the particulars of total elected members and total members who signed the motion. It is contended that when no reasons are assigned, there is no point in holding the meeting for discussion on the aspect of ‘No Confidence Motion’ and if reasons are not specified, one cannot be expected to discuss in air. Learned counsel submits that when management of Society is functioning smoothly without there being any contravention under Section 115-D of the Act, the 3rd respondent cannot be allowed to poke his nose in the affairs, and if they are permitted to do so, the financial stability of the 5th respondent society as well as the 4th respondent bank will be affected, directly or indirectly. Learned counsel relied on the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in P. Raghava Reddi (WP.No. 3716 of 1974).
6. Whereas learned Government Pleader submits that as soon as Managing Committee members, numbering nine, submitted 'No Confidence Motion', the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 17.01.2024 in accordance with Rule 24-A(1), scheduling a meeting on 09.02.2024. Contending that enclosure of copy of ‘No Confidence Motion' moved against petitioners along with notice of meeting is not necessary and there is no provision in Act or Rules either expressly or by necessary implication, mandating service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' along with notice to be served by Registrar to all members, learned Government Pleader relies on the judgments of High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Y. Raghava Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1999 (2) ALT 175 wherein it has been held as under:
8. We have perused the record. The notice was served though the copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence is not attached with the said notice. Be that as it is, nothing has been pointed out at the Bar whereby, by the Legislature, it has been provided that non-compliance of processual or procedural provisions of service of notice or the form of notice would render the vote of no-confidence invalid. The object of procedural law is to serve the person or appraise the person that a vote of no-confidence would be held on a particular date and at a particular time for consideration of the motion of no-confidence. It is only the intention of the proposer which has to be intimated to the members, which has been categorically made in the present case. It cannot be assumed that the petitioner was not aware of the object of the meeting, time of meeting and place of meeting. There is nothing on. record from which we can assume that even the copy of the proposed motion was not enclosed, if it would have been so, the members would have approached the authority stating that the notice does not carry the copy which is stated to have been enclosed with the notice. Official acts are presumed to have been done in due discharge of the duty as envisaged and contained in the notice. There is a presumption that a copy of the motion has in fact been enclosed unless contrary is proved. There is nothing to prove contrary to the record. There is no dispute that eight members out of the twelve members had proposed to move a vote of no-confidence. The meeting was already held and it is a fate accomplished that out of the twelve members, eight have voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. The notice being only directory, the mere use of the word “shall”, cannot give rise to it being a mandatory in the facts and circumstances of the case, and specially when no consequence for non-compliance of the requirements of the notice in Form-V has been provided by legislation. In view of this, we find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence has not been enclosed with Form-V notice.
9. In the alternative, as stand from the pleadings, the copy sent was only in Form-ll which did not contain the names of the persons who presented the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which may, at the most, raise is to the pedestal of an irregularity which will not render the proceedings as non-est or bad. There are no pari materia provisions provided for to the effect that non service of true copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence would render the notice invalid.
He also relied on the judgment in Daman Laxminarayana V. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sircilla Division 2013(4) ALD 629, wherein it has been held as under:
“ 14.It needs to be pointed out that even in the absence of a debate, Form-V prescribed under the Rules framed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, provides for service of a copy of Motion of No Confidence. Interestingly, even though the provisions of the Act envisaged a debate, no such provision is incorporated therein. If the Legislature felt that for the purpose of debate, enclosure of a copy of No Confidence Motion is necessary, there would have been no reason why a specific provision is not incorporated therein. No ignorance can be attributed to the Legislature. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that in its wisdom, the Legislature felt that service of copy of No Confidence Motion on the members is not required. The Courts cannot substitute its own opinion for the wisdom of the Legislature.
15.I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules, either expressly or by necessary implication, mandating service of copy of No Confidence Motion along with the notice to be served by the Registrar to all the members, it is not possible for this Court to hold that service of copy of No Confidence Motion must be read into the provisions of the Act.
16.There is another angle from which this issue needs to be examined. There is a minimum time limit of 15 days between the service of notice and the date of No Confidence Motion. If the persons against whom the No Confidence Motion is moved or his supporters feel the necessity of knowing the contents of the Motion, they will have sufficient time to approach the Registrar with a request to furnish a copy of No Confidence Motion and other necessary details regarding the No Confidence Motion. If such a request is made, this Court feels that it is mandatory on the part of the Registrar to furnish a copy of No Confidence Motion and other details relevant for the purpose of Motion to such members. The Legislature has, obviously, assumed that as, such a facility is always available to the members, the requirement of service of copy of No Confidence Motion along with the notice is not necessary.
17.In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that in the absence of statutory prescription of service of copy of No Confidence Motion to the members, the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. However, as observed herein before, the petitioners shall be free to approach respondent No. 1 with a request to furnish copies of the No Confidence Motion. If the petitioners make such a request, respondent No. 1 shall forthwith furnish the copies thereof. Since the proposed meeting could not take place in view of the interim order granted by this Court, respondent No. 1 is directed to issue a fresh notice to the members by fixing a date for considering the No Confidence Motion.
7. In view of the clear law laid down as stated supra on this aspect, this Court is of the view that Rule 24-A of the Rules laid down the procedure to be followed in respect of 'No Confidence Motion'. Neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' along with notice to be issued by the Registrar. In the absence of statutory prescription of service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' to the members, the impugned notice does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The submission of learned counsel for petitioners that the 3rd respondent acted in contrast to the provisions of the Act cannot be countenanced. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. This writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao submits that meeting was scheduled to be conducted tomorrow, hence, till this order is challenged by way of Appeal, interests of his clients may be protected. In view of the said submission, respondents are directed to proceed with ‘No Confidence Motion’, however, shall not declare the result till 15.02.2024.
10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
