1. The petitioner cooperative society was registered in the year 1962 with fishermen as it members. There are 70 members in the petitioner society who are seeking out their livelihood solely depending upon fishing. The area of operation of the petitioner society as per its bye-laws includes 1) Atreyapuram 2) Tadipudi 3) Vadapalli 4) Vasanthavada 5) Ucchilli 6) Vaddipami 7) Kattunga 8) Narkedimilli 9) Ankampalem and 10) Lolla villages. The Government of Andhra Pradesh framed rules in G.O. Ms. No.343, dated 10-4-1978 with respect to the leasing out of tanks in the Gram Panchayat. Under Rule 3(a)(1), the Gram Panchayats are empowered to lease out the tanks in the respective Gram Panchayats without public auction to the Fishermen Co-operative Society of the local area By the impugned Memo No.22530/12/95 dated 7-6-1996, the Director of Fisheries - 1st respondent herein accordedpermission to organise a separate Fishermen Co-operative Society at Lolla village with 12 promoters after deletion of Lolla village from the area of operation of the petitioner society with the following jurisdiction.
(1) 4 Tanks of Lolla village
(2) Godavari River course from Lolla to Merlapalli (-3.2 Kms)
It is further stated in the impugned Memo thus :
'After deletion of Lolla (V), the parent Fishermen Co-operative Society will be having (7) tanks of Atreyapuram, Ankapalem, Utchili, Tadipuddi, Warked milli villages.
Regarding (10) members of Alreyapuram Fishermen Cooperative society who are residents of Lolla (v) may join in new Fishermen Cooperative Society if they desire so'.
2. Pursuant to the said impugned Memo of the 1st respondent dated 17-6-1996, the 3rd respondent by his Letter No.2854/D/95, dated 17-6-1996 directed the petitioner society to delete Lolla village from the operation of the petitioner society by convening a General Body Meeting and amend the Bye-law No. 1 of the petitioner society so that a new fishermen cooperative society in Lolla village can be formed with jurisdiction comprising of
(1) 4 Tanks of Lolla village
(2) Godavari River course from Lolla to Merlapalli (-3.2 Kms)
The petitioner society thereupon filed the above writ petition assailing the action of the 1st respondent and questioning the validity ofthe Memo dated 7-6-1996 and the consequential orders for deletion passed by the 3rd respondent in his Letter No.2854/D/95, dated 17-6-1996 as illegal, void and wholly without jurisdiction.
3. Certain allegations as to mala fides are attributed to the 4th respondent, the Assistant Director of Fisheries Mr. M. Satyanarayana, the then Fisheries ExtensionOfficer, Razole in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petiton and it was alleged that the said 4th respondent Sri M. Satyanarayana had initiated proposals for registration of a separate fishermen cooperative society and in the counter affidavit it is admitted that the Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada by Memo No. 1216/A/90 dated 2-4-1990 had directed the 4th respondent to submit his explanation for fowarding the proposals and had also issued orders directing the Assistant Director of Fisheries to advise the promoters to join the existing society. It may not be necessary to consider the said allegations with regard to the mala fides as the question arising for consideration is whether by a directive of the Registrar under Section 16(5), the area of operation of a Society can be deleted for the formation of a separate fishermen cooperative society, the said question is purely one of law.
4. The counter affidvit filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 states that a representation was received from Ch. Srirama Murthy - impleaded petitioner vide WPMP No.18233 of 1996 as Respondent No.5 consequent upon his being impleaded in the above writ petition. The request was for formation of aseparate fishermen cooperative society and the same was examined by the Extension Officer, Kothapeta, who vide his Letter No.117/85 has recommended and submitted proposals for organisation of fishermen cooperative society at Lolla after deletion of the said village from the petitioner fisherman cooperative society. It is also stated that the viability of the parent society (petitioner society) after deletion of Lolla village will not be effected. In view of the difference of opinion expressed by the Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada, the Joint Director of Fisheries was instructed to inspect the area of operation of the petitioner society alongwith Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada and Assistant Driector of Fisheries, Kakinada and assess the viability of the parent society (petitioner society) in the event of organising new fishermen cooperative society at Lolla. Based on theEnquiry Report submitted by the Joint Director of Fisheries to the Director of Fisheries, it was concluded that deletion of Lolla village from the petitioner society will not effect the viability of the petitioner society. Reliance has been also placed on the Circular Memo No.26130/11/83 dated 23-12-1983 wherein certain guidelines have been laid down and which read as under :
(i) It is desirable to have only one Co-operative Society for each village. If all the tanks in the village facilitate the members to cross the poverty line, all the tanks in the village may be included in the area of operation in the village itself.
(ii) If the members of the society organised in a particular village are not in a position to cross the poverty line with the tanks available in the village (which means that society is not viable) inclusion of a few tanks situated in any other neighbouring village/villages without effecting the viability of the societies from whose area of operation deletion of the tanks is proposed for inclusion in the area of operation of the deficit society may have to be considered.''
The impugned orders are therefore sought to be sustained for the above reasons, it is also submitted that water spread area of Godavari river is also a dependable source and hence the petitioner society which has 70 (Seventy) members though the water spread area of 11 (eleven) tanks was insufficient, there is more viable income for the members from all the sources and that after the deletion of Lolla village with its 4 tanks and a river course from Lolla to Merlapalli, the petitioner society will have 7 (seven) tanks and Godavari River course of 5 Kms stretch from Lolla to Vaddipurarn and these sources are enough to give viability to the members of the parent fishermen cooperative society even after deletion.
5. The impleaded Respondent No.5 -Ch. Srirama Murthy who submitted the proposals for formation of a separate fishermen cooperative society for Lolla villagehas in the affidavit filed in support of Lolla village has in the affidavit filed in support of the impleading petition supported the action of Respondents 1 to 3 for formation of a separate cooperative society. It is stressed by the 5th respondent that there are 4 tanks in Lolla village and if a separate fishermen cooperative society is formed for the said village, the petitioner society would still be a viable one and that the promoters of the proposed society are fishermen and have been living on fishing since generations and are residents of Settibalijapeta, hamlet, of Lolla village and there are about 30 such families.
6. From the above narration of facts as gleaned from the affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioners and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is apparent that the petitioner society has been in existence since 1962 and as per its Bye-law the area of operation includes about 10 villages, the Lolla village is sought to be excluded from the area of operation of the petitioner society with a view to form a new fishermen cooperative society. It is also evident from the contentions advanced before Court by the learned Counsel and the materials papers filed in the above writ by either parties that the authorities have after receiving the proposal for formation of a new society conducted enquiries as to the viability of the petitioner society if the Lolla village is deleted from the operation of the petitioner society and whether permission should be granted for organising a new cooperative society after deleting Lolla village from the area of operation of the petitioner society. The impugned orders have been passed after such verifications and technical reports received as to the viability of the petitioner society after deletion of Lolla villge from the area of the petitioner society. The whole exercise culminating in the impugned orders are in relation to formation of a new Cooperative Society for fishermen by restricting the area of operation of the petitioner society and transferring 'Lolla Village with its 4 tanks' to the proposed new society.
7. Sri D. Sudershan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner society contendedthat the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction and that there are no valid reasons warranting the deletion of any area from the petitioner society. That the proposed action is mala fide. That the action for deletion of the area of operation cannot be made by a directive to the petitoner society to amend its Bye-laws. The effect of the impugned proceedings is to restrict the area of operation and exclude the same from the petitioner society and thereby also effect division of the petitioner society and such action can, if at all, be taken only as per the procedure specifically proivded therefor under Section 15A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and not in purported exercise of power under Section 16(5) of the Act.
8. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 and as also Sri M.V. Durga Prasad learned Counsel for the impleaded 5th respondent submitted that the impugned orders directing the petitioner society to amend the Bye-laws and delete Lolla village from the area of operation of the petitioner society, power for the same is traceable to 16(5) of the Act and the same has been exercised in accordance with law and is otherwise valid. It is the further submission of the respondents that the petitioner society has no vested right in the Lolla village nor can the petitioner society claim Lolla village as an asset of the petitioner society. It is further submitted by Sri M.V. Durga Prasad Rao, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 that the argument of the petitioner that registration of anew society for an area within the jurisdiction of the petitoner society amounted to a division of the petitioner society is wholly mis-conceived as any number of societies under the Act can be registered or incorporated and the same does not amount to either bifurcation or division of the existing societies. Consequently, it is submitted that Section 15 A of the Act has no application to the instant case. The area of operation, it was contended by Sri M. V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the 5th respondent is mentioned in the Bye-laws and therefore in exercise of the powers vestedunder Section 16(5) of the Act, the Registrar can direct amendment of the Bye-laws.
9. Before we examine the validity of the various contentions advanced by learned Counsel for either parlies, it may be observed that in so far as the fishermen cooperative societies are concerned, the G.O.Ms.No.343, dated 10-4-1978 directs that the tanks vested in the Gram Panchayats shall be leased out to local Rajaka Seva Sangham, otherwise the fishing rights in the Minor Irrigation Tank shall be offered to the Fishermen Cooperative Society having jurisdiction over the area on the basis of the upset price fixed by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. Such fishermen cooperative society are thus entitled to lease of such tanks without public auction. The Respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have referred to a Circular Memo No.26130/11/83 dated 23-12-1983 which prescribes certain norms to assess the viability of the societies. It is stated therein that it is desirable to have only one cooperative society for each village. All the tanks in the village to be included in the area of opertion of the Society for that village. In appropriate cases, for inclusion of tanks situated in any other neighbouring village without effecting the viability of the socities from whose area of operation, deletion of the tanks is proposed for inclusion in the area of operation of the deficit society.
10. The 'area of operation' of a fishermen cooperative society is therefore relevant and important in more ways than one. Firstly, societies in the local area are entitled to grant the lease-hold rights in respect of the tanks situated in any Gram Panchayat without their having to participate in any auction. All tanks in the village to be included in the area of operation of the society for that village. One society for one village. If any fishermen cooperative society are not viable, then the tanks situated in other neighbouring villages can be included in the area of operation by deleting the same if it does not effect the viability of the other society. Each fishermen cooperative society thus can operate only within the area of operation specified in the Bye-laws. The Functional Registrar -Director/Dy. Director/Asst.Director of Fisheries who have been delegated the powers to perform the functions of the Registrar under the Act have to ensure the viability of such fishermen cooperative societies and have also to consider the viability of the proposed society before granting permissions for formation of new fishermen cooperative society, in accordance with the guidelines formulated in that behalf and area of operation of such societies have to be specified either by deleting the same from existing societies or by providing area not already included in any other fishermen cooperative society. These are some of the features which distinguish the fishermen cooperative society from many other types of societies that may be registered under the Act and for which the 'area of operation' may not be relevant from the above point of view. The above are some of the important aspects which have to be borne in mind while considering the contentions advanced by learned Counsel.
11. Let us now advert to the relevant provisions of the Act before considering the rival contentions.
12. Section 4 permits any society, which has, as its main object, the promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with the co-operative principles, or a society established with the object of facilitating the operation of such a society, may be registered under this Act. Section 6 lays down the procedure for registration, namely, by means of an application to the Registrar in the form prescribed, with four copies of the proposed Bye-laws, etc. Section 7 provides that if the Registrar is satisfied that the application conforms to the requirements of the Act and the Rules, and the objects of the society are in accordance with Section 4, and the society is likely to be economically sound, and that its registration may not have an adverse effect on the development of the co-operative movement, and the proposed Bye-laws are not contrary to the provisons of the Act and the Rules, he may register the society. If the Registrar is not satisfied, he shall refuse to register it.According to Section 8 when the society is registered, the Registrar shall issue a certificate of registration signed and sealed by him, which shall be conclusive evidence that the society is duly registered under the Act. Section 9 of the Act lays down that the registration of the society renders it a body corporate, and entitles it to acquire, hold, or dispose of property, and enter into contracts, institute and defend legal proceedings, and do all other things necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted.
13. Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act provides that the Bye-laws of the society shall not be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and may deal with all or any of the matters specified therein, and such olher matters incidental to the organisation of the society and the management of the business. Item (2) of that rule is the area of operation of a society. This rule, therefore, provides that the Bye-laws may provide for the area of its operations.
14. Section 15 of the Act empowers the Registrar to order division or amalgamation of the societies if it is in the interest of the societies or of the cooperative movement The vires of Section 15 of the Act was challenged in Duvvur Papireddi and others v.. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nellore and others, 1972 (2) ALT 61, the Division Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 15 and rejected the contention that the same is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India
15. Section 15A was first introduced by an Ordinance 6 of 1976. That Ordinance was replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 and thereafter Section 15A vyas introduced by Act No.6 of 1977 in substitution of the earlier Section 15A. By 1987 Amendment Act, the present sub-section (1) of Section 15A was once again amended. Prior to its amendment by the 1987 Amendment Act, Section 15A provided for amalgamation or merger of non-viable society with a viable society and also for liquidation of non-viable societies, the 1987Amendment Act enlarged the powers of the Registrar. Under Section 15A as amended by the 1987 Amendment Act, the Registrar is not only entitled to amalgamate or merge any society with another society, but is also entitled to divide and restrict or transfer the area of operations of a society. The constitutional validity of Section 15A after the amendment by the 1987 Amendment Act was upheld by a Division Bench of this High Court in M. Ranga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, : AIR1989AP81 wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 15 A as amended are not violative of Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution of India Section 15A which empowers the Registrar to amalgamate or merge also entitles the Registrar to divide or restrict or transfer the area of operation of a society.
16. It would be appropriate to extract Section 15A which is made the basis or foundation of the arguments of Sri D. Sudershan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It reads as under :
'15A. Identification of viability of societies and consequences thereof :--(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or the rules made thereunder or the Bye-laws of the society concerned, if the Registrar is of the opinion that it is necessary to amalgamate or merge any society with any other such society or to divide and restrict or transfer the area of operation of a society for any of the following purpose namely :
(a) for ensuring economic viability of any or all the societies concerned; or
(b) for avoiding overlapping of conflict of jurisdiction of societies in any area; or
(c) for securing proper management of any society; or
(d) in the interest of the Co-operative movement in general and of cooperative credit structure in particular in the state taken as a whole or
(e) for any other reason in the public interest he may identify the viable andnon-viable societies which may be retained or divided with consequential restriction of the area of operation or the transfer of such area or amalgamated or liquidated as the case may be, and may be a notification to be published in the prescribed manner, specify the area of operation of each such society or societies to be retained, divided or amalgamated with any other society indicated in the said notification and invite objections or suggestions from the societies or any members, depositors, creditors, employees or other persons concerned with the affairs of each such society to be received within twenty one days from the date of publication of the Notification.
The underlined portions have either been added or substituted as the case may be, by the Amendment Act.
17. Section 15A(1) provides that before taking action, which in the opinion of the Registrar is necessary to amalgamate or merge any society with any other such society or to divide and restrict or transfer the area of operation of a society, the Registrar should first identify the viable and non-viable societies which may be retained or divided with consequential restriction of the area of operation or the transfer of such area as the case may be and then issue a notification to be published in the prescribed manner specifying the area of operation of each such society or societies to be retained, divided, or amalgamated with any other society indicated in the said notification, and invite objections or suggestions from the societies or any members, depositors, creditors, employees or other persons concerned with the affairs of each such society to be received within twenty one days from the date of publication of this notificatioa Having thus provided, Explanation (ii) says that any society may convene the general body meeting within seven days from the date of publication of the notification
18. A comprehensive scheme is thus contained in Section 15A for amalgamation, merger, division, liquidation, restriction or transferring the area of operation. The Registrar is required to first form an opinion if any of the said steps are required to be taken in the interest of improving the conditions and affairs of the cooperative societies or in the interest of Cooperative movement. The opinion of the Registrar is not subjective, but is objective and has to be formed after giving notice to the affected societies. The grounds upon which the Registrar has to take any of the said actions enumerated in Section 15A are specified in sub-section (1)of Section 15A,
19. The Division Bench in M. Ranga Reddy's case (supra) observed that the powers of the Registrar under Section 15 A is qualitatively speaking no different from the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Act, though procedurally they are different. While under Section 15, the Registrar is to first call upon the societies to amalgamate or divide and only when they refuse to obey the directive, can he effect the amalgamation or division as the case may be, under Section 15A the intermediate step is avoided.
20. In the light of the above and specially by virtue of the amendments brought about by the 1987 Amendment Act in Section 15(A) conferring the power inter alia to restrict or transfer the area of operation of a society, the Registrar is empowered to restrict or transfer the area of operation if he is of the opinion that such action is necessary. Such opinion to be formed by the Registrar is not his subjective opinion, but is objective, to be formed after giving notice and has to be based upon the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15A.
21. Under Section 16 of the Act, no amendment of any Bye-law of a society shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered under the Act. Sub-section (2) lays down that every proposal for such amendment shall be forwarded to the Registrar and if he is satisfied that the proposed amendment fulfills the conditions specified in sub-section (1) of Section 7, he shall register the amendmentand under sub-section 3, the Registrar shall forward to the society a copy of the registered amendment together with a Certificate which shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered. Subsection (4) states that whenever the Registrar is not so satisfied, he shall communicate his refusal together with reasons therefore to the society. Sub-section (5) is relevant for the purpose of the instant case as much reliance has been placed by the respondents for sustaining the impugned order. It reads as under :
'5. If in the opinion of the Registrar, an amendment of the Bye-laws of a society is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society or the Co-operative movement, he may, in the manner prescribed, call upon the society to make any amendment within such time as he may specify. If the society fails to make such amendment within the time so specified, the Registrar may, after giving the society an opportunity of making its representation, register such amendment and forward the society by registered post a copy of the amendment together with a certificate signed by him; such a certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered; and such an amendment shall have the same effect as an amendment of any Bye-law made by the society.'
22. Rule 11 of the rules framed under the Act prescribes the procedure for direction by Registrar for amendment of Bye-laws. The particulars to be stated in the notice calling for the meeting of the Committee of such society to convene a General Meeting to consider the amendment proposed by the Registrar have been specified therein. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 11 states that where any objections are filed by the society to the proposed amendment, such objections shall be duly considered by the Registrar after affording an opportunity of being heard to the society, if it so desires to be heard in the matter.
23. In the light of the statutory provisions contained in Section 15A, which specificallylays down the procedure for restricting or transferring the area of operation and the grounds based on which such action can be taken by the Registrar, it has to be held that without following the procedure contemplated and specified under Section 15A, the area of operation of a society can neither be restricted nor deleted by resort to summary procedure of amendment of Bye-laws of a society tinder Section 16(5) of the Act.
24. In the instant case, the respondent authorities have by impugned orders, restricted the area of operation of the petitioner society and deleted Lolla village from the area of operation of the petitioner society with a view to form a new society of fishermen for Lolla village. In doing so, the procedure prescribed under Section 15A has not been followed and action has been taken under Section 16(5) of the Act by directing the petitioner society to amend its Bye-laws and delete Lolla village from its area of operation. Such action being contrary to the provisions contained in Section 15(A), the action of the respondent authorities has to be held to be contrary to law. It is no solace to say that the viability was duly considered and various reports were called for and only thereafter action was taken for directing the petitioner society to amend its Bye-laws. When a statute prescribes a specific procedure and manner for the exercise of jurisdiction, the action of the authorities would have to conform to the manner and procedure prescribed therein. The action, to sustain its validity must be one in conformity with the specific provisions which mandates compliance therewith.
25. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, teamed Counsel for Respondent No.5 (promoter of the proposed society) relying upon the Vizianagaram Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, Vizianagaram v. Bheemunipatnam Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, By its President G.V. Narayana and others, 1968(1) AWR 52 contended that the language of Section 15 or 15(A) do not warrant a finding that the registration of a new society for an area already served by an existing society amountsto a division of the area of operations of the existing society or that the procedure indicated in Section 15 or 15A should be followed before the registration of a new society. The contentions of Sri M. V. Durga Prasad, no doubt are supported by the aforesaid judgment in the Vizianagaram Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, Vizianagaram 's case (supra). However, the said case is distinguishable on facts of the instant case. The foremost dislinguishing feature being the amendment of the provisions contained in Section 15A brought about by 1987 Amendment Act empowering the Registrar to restrict or transfer area of operation. In Ihe Vizianagaram Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited's case (supra), the question of the area of operation or transfer of the same was not an issue relevant for registration of another society in the same area of operation of the existing society. In fact the Division Bench has in the said judgment while dealing with the contention raised by Sri Narasa Raju referred to and clarified the observations of the learned single Judge, Krishna Rao, J from whose orders, the Writ Appeal had been preferred, in the following terms :
'Sri Narasa Raju then contended that even granting that Ihe registration is valid, the 6th respondent-society should not be prevented from carrying on its operations in Dheemunipatnam taluk. He staled that the observation of Krishna Rao, J, in the penultimate paragraph of Ms order that if the 6th Respondent wishes to function in Bheemunipatnam taluq, it should be agitated before the concerned authorities, may be construed as a finding that the 6th Respondent-society cannot function in that areas without the permission of the authorities. We do not think that is. the effect of that observation. It is, however, made clear that if the Apex 'Bank (5th Respondent) provides funds to the 6th respondent for being advanced in Bheemunipatnam taluq, it (6th Respondent) also would be at liberty to grant loans in that area In fact a memo, was filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner-society inthe Writ Petition on 27th September, 1966, to the effect that its registration would not bar the continuance of the members of the 6th Respondent-society on its roll on 21st December, 1964, as its members, inspite of their residing in Bheemunipatnam taluq, or that the rights of privileges of such members in obtaining loans as the members of that Bank will not be effected.'
26. In the instant case, as noticed above, by virtue of the impugned orders, the petitioner society after deletion of Lolla village from the area of its operation, will not be entitled to either function or carry on business in the said village nor its existing members who are residents of the proposed deleted area would be eligible to continue as members of the petitioner society and lose the rights or privileges which they were enjoying as members of the petitioner society.
27. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5, next contended that under Rule 5 of the Society Rules the area of operation is part of the Bye-laws of a society and Section 16(5) confers jurisdiction on the Registrar to amend Bye-laws in appropriate cases. The Registrar thus having complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 16(5) and Rule 11, the impugned action cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction, it was contended. It was the further submission of the learned Counsel that where two procedures are prescribed, the one which is less harsher or onerous should be adopted. I cannot accede to the said contentions, Section 16 is a general I power of amendment of Bye-laws conferred on the Registrar. Section 15A, however, is a specific provision dealing inter alia with restriction or transfer of areas of operation. The general provision has therefore to yield to the specific provision. Section 16(5) does not really deaf with the area of operations either for restriction or deletion thereof nor does Section 16(5) empower the Registrar to divide or amalgamate any society. It merely deals with amendment of Bye-laws. Merely because area of operation of a society ismentioned in Bye-laws, it cannot be construed that the area of operation can be directed to be either deleted or restricted by summary procedure of a directive to delete the area of operation by amendment of Bye-laws. The question is not really one of amendment of a Bye-law when area of operation is either required to -be restricted or transferred to another society. It has various implications including those of disqualifying the existing members to be members of the society from which the area of operation is sought to be transferred. The transfer of assets and liabilities of the society have to be considered consequent upon an area of operation being either restricted or transferred from such society. The viability of the society is to be considered. These are some of the consequences enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 15 A which flow out of the orders passed under sub-section (1) of Section 15A. These would necessarily have to be taken into consideration by the Registrar before action is taken by him for restricting or transferring the area of operation. Notice is therefore postulated under Section 15A to be issued to and suggestions and objections from the societies members, creditors employees and other persons concerned with the affairs of the Society and only after considering the same, the Registrar is required to form his opinion. Section 16(5) does not postulate the formation of opinion of the Registrar while directing amendment of Bye-law to take into account any such considerations. Section 16(5) and Section 15A do not operate in the same field. The procedure prescribed under Section 15A cannot be said to be either onerous or harsh. The contention therefore that the less onerous procedure prescribed under Section 16(5) of the Act is to be followed in preference to Section 15A, is untenable and has to be rejected.
28. Sri D. Sudershan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court in unreported judgment of a learned single Judge in Fishermen Cooperative Society, Chandampet v. Assistant Director of Fisheries, Medak District at Medak and others, W.P.No.22183 of 1995 whichconsidered a similar contention with regard to bifurcation of the existing society and permission for formation of a separate fishermen cooperative society wherein notice,. was issued by the Registrar under Section 16(5) of the Act to amend its Bye-laws for formation of a new society. While upholding the contentions of the petitioner society and quashing the impugned notice issued under Section 16(5), it was held that :
'The provisions of Section 15 are quite different from the provisions of Section 16 of the Act which are meant for the purpose of amending the Bye-laws. Section 15 of the Act specifically provides for bifurcating the society and after a notice and hearing the objections of the parties, the decision of the Registrar has to be made. The notice contemplated under this Section must afford an adequate opportunity and in that notice any report of the Inspector regarding the viability of the village must also be given to the society which is sought to be bifurcated.'
The order of the learned single Judge has also been upheld in W.A.No.116 of 1996 dated 27-2-1996.
29. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, brought to the notice of this Court an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.9938 and 16201 of 1993 which was disposed of by a common order dated 4-8-1994 and the said judgment was upheld in W.A.No.956 of 1994 and a direction was issued by the Appellate Court leaving it open to the respondent authorities to take action as per Section 16(5) of the Act uninfluenced by the decision taken by the Commissioner of Fisheries, if he is prima facie satisfied that there is a case for organisation of a separate Co-operative Society for Thimmapur village. Relying upon the observations made in the judgment of the Appellate Court in W.A.No.956 of 1994, it is sought to be contended that for organisation of a new cooperative society, action under Section 16(5) of the Act is permissible. In that case, however, no contention was raised as in the present writ petition with regard to applicabilityof Section 15A with respect to deletion of area of operation. The only point for consideration was with regard to violation of principles of natural justice in the initiation of proceedings under Section 16(5) of the Act. In that case, a direction was given by Ihe Commissioner of Fisheries to the subordinate officials that Thimmapur village should be deleted from the area of operation of the petitioner society and a separate fishermen cooperative society should be formed. The learned single Judge quashed the said order observing that the Commissioner of Fisheries has pre-determined the whole issue and no option was left to the Functional Registrar to differ with the determination made by the superior officer, Commissioner of Fisheries.
30. In the circumstances, the observations made by the appellate order in W.A.No.956 of 1994 cannot be construed to mean that for deletion of the area of operation, action under Section 16(5) of the Act is permissible. The matter was left open by the Division Bench permitting the Registrar to take action as per Section 16(5) if he is prima facie satisfied, after considering the objections that may be filed by the affected society.
31. In Ihe circumstances, it has to be held that the impugned orders are contrary to law and violative of the procedure prescribed under Section 15A of the Act and are thus liable to be declared void and are accordingly so declared and directed to be set aside.
32. In the result, the Writ Petition isallowed with costs.