B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. The Fishermen Co-operative Society, Kondair Village, Itkyal Mandal, filed Writ Petition No. 15562 of 2001 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of ndia, challenging the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents vide proceedings RC No. 506/12/2001, dated 13-6-2001 and the proceeding No. 669/E/1999, dated 30-6-2001 as illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 1982 Food and Agriculture Department (Fisheries), dated 5-6-1966.
2. In order to consider the validity of the impugned proceedings dated 30-6-2001 on the file of the Assistant Director of Fisheries/Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), Mahabubnagar, a look at the order is necessary. The order passed by the Assistant Director is itself explanatory. In the order, it is recited that the fishermen of Jinkalapally Village have submitted a fresh application for providing them membership in the appellant Fishermen Co-operative Society. The Mandal Revenue Officer appears to have issued water spread area certificate based upon which instructions were issued by the Assistant Director to conduct skill test of all the eligible fishermen of Jinkalapally Village and submit a report in that regard. The Fisheries Development Officer, Kothakota, having identified 20 fishermen and having conducted the skill test found 20 fishermen to be eligible for enrolment as members of the appellant-Fishermen Cooperative Society. Thereafter the said 20 Fishermen of Jinkalapally Village have submitted J-Forms before the Assistant Director of Fisheries/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, for their enrolment as members in the Fisherman Co-operative Society, Kondair. The same has been sent by the Assistant Director of Fisheries to the President of the appellant-Fishermen Co-operative Society vide letter dated 24-4-2001 and 29-5-2001. The appellant society had refused to receive the letters sent by the Assistant Director and acknowledge the same. It is under those circumstances, the Commissioner of Fisheries, Andhra Pradesh, appears to have issued telegraphic instructions to the Assistant Director of Fisheries for taking immediate action in the matter of enrolment of fishermen of Jinakalapally Village in the appellant Fishermen Co-operative Society, Kondair.
3. The Assistant Director of Fisheries/ Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in purported exercise of the power under Section 19(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') ordered that the fishermen of Jinkalapally Village shall be deemed to be the members of Fishermen Co-operative Society, Kondair of Itkyal Mandal, subject to depositing the share capital and admission fee. The share capital and admission fee was accordingly directed to be collected from those fishermen intending to become the members of the appellant society.
4. Sri Sai Ram Goud, learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended before us that the Assistant Director of Fisheries exercising his powers as the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, has no authority or jurisdiction in law to pass the impugned order. The Assistant Director of Fisheries, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant is not authorized to exercise the power of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 19(2-A) of the Act. The order, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, suffers from incurable legal infirmity. The learned Counsel also contended that the persons intending to become members are first required to submit their applications to the society and only thereafter, if at all, can invoke the remedy provided under Section 19(2-A) of the Act for their enrolment as members in the appellant Fishermen Co-operative Society.
Since they did not submit any such application to the appellant society for their enrolment as members in the appellant society, no proceedings as such could have been issued under Section 19(2-A) of the Act.
5. The learned Government Pleader for Fisheries submitted before us that Section 19(2-A) of the Act is one of the mode provided for enrolment of eligible persons/fishermen as members of a Cooperative Society and once the procedure prescribed thereunder for their admission is complied with, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the decision taken by the competent authority. The power under Section 19 (2-A) of the Act is conferred upon the Assistant Director of Fisheries and the same has been rightly exercised in the instant case, is the submission of the learned Government Pleader. Sri G. V. Shivaji, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the persons intending to enrol themselves as members of the appellant Fishermen Co-operative Society, made similar submissions.
6. A bare reading of Section 19(2-A) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any person duly qualified for admission as a member under the provisions of the Act, the rules and the byelaws is entitled to apply through the Registrar for membership of such Societies in such forms as may be prescribed and such person shall be deemed to have been admitted as a member of the society from the date of receipt of the application in the office of the society. That Sub-section (3) of Section 19 provides that the general body of a society shall not, without sufficient cause, refuse admission to membership to any person duly qualified therefor under the provisions of the Act, and the byelaws. But whenever the general body of the society refuses admission to a duly qualified person, it shall record the reasons therefor and communicate the same under registered post to such person within 15 days from the date of decision, or within 60 days from the date of his application for membership, whichever is earlier. A plain reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 19 makes it clear that the procedure provided under Section 19(2-A) of the Act is not the only procedure but a person who is qualified to become a member of the society may even apply directly to the society and the society in its discretion may refuse to grant membership for the reasons to be recorded in writing. In such view of the matter, we find some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the procedure provided under Section 19(2-A) of the Act for admission of members into society is not the only mode of enrolment of members into the society but it is an additional remedy given to persons who are qualified, according to the provisions of the Act, the rules and the byelaws for becoming members of such societies. It is always open to the persons who intend to become members of the society to avail any one or both the remedies as are available.
7. In the instant case, it is clear from the order passed by the Assistant Director that having received the applications from those persons intending to enrol themselves as members in the appellant-Fishermen Co-operative Society, the same were sent to the society as is required under Section 19(2-A) of the Act but the society failed to acknowledge the same. The society infact refused to receive the same. Refusal to receive the applications, in our considered opinion, would amount to receipt of the application in the office of the society. It is under those circumstances, the Assistant Director, passed the impugned order declaring that the persons intending to enrol themselves as members in the appellant Fishermen Co-operative Society shall be deemed to have become the members of the society.
8. The only question that falls for consideration, now is, whether the Assistant Director has jurisdiction to exercise the power vested in the Registrar. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its power conferred by Section 3 of the Act, conferred on the specified authorities the power of Registrar. The same has been notified in G.O. Ms. No. 1982, Food and Agriculture Department (Fisheries) 5-6-1966. The Assistant Director of the District is conferred with all the powers of the Registrar under the Act except those specified under Sections 17, 18, 22, 32(7), 34, 37, 47(2), 50, 64(1), 68, 69, 76, 77, 78, 84 to 115 and 116 of the Act. It is thus clear that the Assistant Director of Fisheries is conferred with the power of Registrar under Section 19(2-A) of the Act. The Assistant Director of Fisheries can exercise all the powers of the Registrar under the Act except those specified and referred to herein above. The power in the instant case has been exercised by the Assistant Director of Fisheries under Section 19(2-A) of the Act, which does not fall under the exception.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance upon the decision in Badugu Giribabu v. District Collector, Guntur, 1996 (2) ALD 242, and a decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 29772 of 1998 dated 27-3-2000 in support of his submission that the Assistant Director has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings dated 30-6-2001 without making applications to the appellant society and without complying the formalities envisaged under Section 19(2) of the Act. The sum and substance of the submission is that straightaway the application could not have been submitted by the intending persons to the 2nd respondent herein. In Badugu Giribabu's case (supra) it is observed thus:
'Though Section 19(2)(A) of the Act merely states that any person duly qualified for admission may make an application it is obvious that this remedy should not be resorted to unless it has been unreasonably refused by the Co-operative Society under Section 19(3) of the Act. Otherwise it will mean that the society is bypassed and applications are made directly to the Registrar and the persons are deemed to be members without giving opportunity to the Co-operative Society to consider whether they should be admitted as members or not. Since the petitioners have not approached the society and their applications have not been rejected in the first instance under Section 19(3) of the Act, any application under Section 19(2)(A) of the Act was not required to be considered.'
10. The observations made by this Court in Badugu Giribabu's case (supra), in our considered opinion, are required to be understood so as to be in conformity with the provisions under Section 19(2-A) of the Act. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge that in the first instance the qualified individuals intending to enrol themselves as members of the Co-operative Societies are required to necessarily first approach the Co-operative Society itself and it is only after rejecting their applications such eligible persons are entitled to move to the Registrar to take steps under Section 19(2-A) of the Act. A plain reading of Section 19(2-A) of the Act does not support the broad view taken by the learned Single Judge both in Badugu Giribabu's case (supra) and W.P. No. 29772 of 1998. A cumulative reading of Section 19(2-A) and 19(3) of the Act would make it abundantly clear that there are two modes available to the qualified persons seeking admission as a member under the provisions of the Act, the rules and the byelaws, intending to become the members of such societies. It is open to such individuals either to directly apply to the society or have recourse to the procedure contemplated under Section 19(2A) of the Act. Both are complementary to each other. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that a qualified person seeking admission as a member under the provisions of the Act has to necessarily first approach the society and only thereafter approach the Registrar under Section 19(2-A) of the Act.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries does not suffer from any jurisdictional errors. The learned Single Judge did not commit any error in upholding the impugned order passed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries.
12. The writ appeal fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. Consequently the interim order earlier granted by this Court shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.