The Tadiparru Primary Agricultural Co-op. Society, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. A. Venkateswara Rao, President of the Society and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderp. ramakrisham raju, j.1. this writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge dated 6-4-1994 made in w.p.no. 18424 of 1993.2. the first respondent herein filed the writ petition questioning the order of the deputy registrar of co-operative societies, kovvur, the 2nd respondent, dated 30-11-1993 where the first respondent (writ petitioner) was found to have defaulted in payment of the amounts due to the society and therefore, incurred the disqualification under section 21-a of the a.p. co-operative societies act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as 'the act'. the first respondent is the president of the society, the second respondent has issued a show-cause notice calling for his explanation as to why he should not be treated that he has ceased to be a member of the managing committee of the society. however, the first respondent maintains that he has submitted his explanation for the said show cause notice. the 2nd respondent while observing that no explanation was forthcoming from the first respondent, has passed an order holding that the first respondent has incurred the disqualification under section 21-a of the act. questioning the said order, the writ petition was filed.3. before the learned single judge, the first respondent has produced an acknowledgment of having submitted his explanation to the sho- cause notice. it is also averred in the writ petition that explanation was submitted on 20-11-1993 and the same was received by the deputy registrar on 22-11-1993. as the said averment was not denied by the deputy registrar, the 2nd respondent and in view of the fact that the acknowledgment was produced by the first respondent, the learned single judge took the view that the allegation that there was no explanation submitted by the first respondent is not correct and accordingly he allowed the writ petition. while allowing the writ petition, the learned judge also directed that instead of the deputy registrar, cooperative societies, kovvur, the deputy registrar, co-operative societies, eluru will receive a copy of the representation submitted by the first respondent either in person or by registered post and after affording an opportunity to him, pass appropriate orders afresh. it is this order that is assailed in in this writ appeal by the co-operative society.4. sri. p.s. narayana, the learned counsel for the appellant society submits that the acknowledgment produced by the first respondent cannot be connected to the explanation alleged to have been furnished by the first respondent in the absence of any clear proof of submitting the explanation as the deputy registrar who is the competent authority has denied the receipt of any such explanation. therefore, it cannot be held that the first respondent has submitted his explanation and that consequently the order under appeal has to be set aside.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as the matter was remitted back to the deputy registrar of co-operative societies for fresh consideration after setting aside the order of the deputy registrar we do not find any ground for interference, particularly in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent has not denied the averment of the first respondent that he has submitted his explanation.6. however, as regards the direction of the learned single judge that instead of the deputy registrar, co-operative societies, kovvur who is having jurisdiction over the society in question, the deputy registrar, co-operatives, eluru shall consider the explanation submitted by the first respondent and pass appropriate orders, we feel that this direction cannot stand since the deputy regisrtrar, co-operative societies, eluru has no jurisdiction over the society in question. therefore we direct that the deputy registrar, co-operative societies, kovvur alone shall receive the explanation of the first respondent, consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. inasmuch as there is no allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the deputy registrar, kovvur was inimically disposed towards the first respondent nor any material was placed before this court in proof of such allegation, we are inclined to hold that there is no justification to change the deputy registrar. accordingly, the deputy registrar, co-operative societies, kovvur alone will receive the explanation submitted by the first respondent and consider the same as directed by the learned single judge.7. the first respondent will send a copy of the explanation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from to-day. on consideration of that explanation, final orders will be passed by the second respondent within two weeks after receipt of the explanation.8. the writ appeal is disposed of accordingly at the stage of admission.

Judgment:
ORDER

P. Ramakrisham Raju, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned single judge dated 6-4-1994 made in W.P.No. 18424 of 1993.

2. The first respondent herein filed the Writ Petition questioning the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kovvur, the 2nd Respondent, dated 30-11-1993 where the first respondent (writ petitioner) was found to have defaulted in payment of the amounts due to the society and therefore, incurred the disqualification under Section 21-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The first respondent is the President of the society, the second respondent has issued a show-cause notice calling for his explanation as to why he should not be treated that he has ceased to be a member of the Managing Committee of the Society. However, the first respondent maintains that he has submitted his explanation for the said show cause notice. The 2nd respondent while observing that no explanation was forthcoming from the first respondent, has passed an order holding that the first respondent has incurred the disqualification under Section 21-A of the Act. Questioning the said order, the writ petition was filed.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, the first respondent has produced an acknowledgment of having submitted his explanation to the sho- cause notice. It is also averred in the writ petition that explanation was submitted on 20-11-1993 and the same was received by the Deputy Registrar on 22-11-1993. As the said averment was not denied by the Deputy Registrar, the 2nd respondent and in view of the fact that the acknowledgment was produced by the first respondent, the learned Single Judge took the view that the allegation that there was no explanation submitted by the first respondent is not correct and accordingly he allowed the writ petition. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Judge also directed that instead of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kovvur, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Eluru will receive a copy of the representation submitted by the first respondent either in person or by Registered post and after affording an opportunity to him, pass appropriate orders afresh. It is this order that is assailed in in this writ appeal by the Co-operative Society.

4. Sri. P.S. Narayana, the learned Counsel for the appellant society submits that the acknowledgment produced by the first respondent cannot be connected to the explanation alleged to have been furnished by the first respondent in the absence of any clear proof of submitting the explanation as the Deputy Registrar who is the competent authority has denied the receipt of any such explanation. Therefore, it cannot be held that the first respondent has submitted his explanation and that consequently the order under appeal has to be set aside.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for fresh consideration after setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar we do not find any ground for interference, particularly in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent has not denied the averment of the first respondent that he has submitted his explanation.

6. However, as regards the direction of the learned single Judge that instead of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kovvur who is having jurisdiction over the society in question, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operatives, Eluru shall consider the explanation submitted by the first respondent and pass appropriate orders, we feel that this direction cannot stand since the Deputy Regisrtrar, Co-operative Societies, Eluru has no jurisdiction over the society in question. Therefore we direct that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kovvur alone shall receive the explanation of the first respondent, consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Inasmuch as there is no allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the Deputy Registrar, Kovvur was inimically disposed towards the first respondent nor any material was placed before this Court in proof of such allegation, we are inclined to hold that there is no justification to change the Deputy Registrar. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kovvur alone will receive the explanation submitted by the first respondent and consider the same as directed by the learned single Judge.

7. The first respondent will send a copy of the explanation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from to-day. On consideration of that explanation, final orders will be passed by the second respondent within two weeks after receipt of the explanation.

8. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly at the stage of admission.