GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. R CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-66
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 05,1992

GOVT.OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
R.CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mohd.Sardar AM Khan, J. - (1.)THIS Writ appeal is directed against the judgment in W.P.No. 16433 of 1987 dated 31-12-1987 allowing the writ Peitition and directing the Collector to hold the elections to the Co-operative Society as ordered by him in his Proceedings Re. No. 6110/86-C dated 4-9-1987.
(2.)THE facts of the case are as follows : THE Ratchumarri Co-operative Society was found to be a viable unit by the Collector whereas Singarajanahalli Co-operative Society was found to be a non-viable one. THE Collector therefore directed the merger of Singarajanahalli Co-operative Society with Ratchumarri Co-operative Society by order dated 18-4-1987. An appeal under section 15-A (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed within 15 days against the order of the Collector before the Registrar who is specified as the appellate authority under section 15-A (5) of the Act. THE Singarajanahalli Co-operative Society also filed an appeal against the orders of the Collector. THE appeal filed by Singarajanahalli Co-operative Society was remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration. THE Collector once again passed the same order merging Singarajanahalli Co-operative Society with Ratchumarri Co-operative Society and on that basis announced an election programme. THE election were scheduled to be held on 4-11-1987, but were stayed by the orders of the Govt. dated 9-10-1987 passed in the revision. THE revision before the Govt. was filed by one M.K. Jagannadha Rao of Singarajanahalli Co-operatiave Society. THE wirt petition was filed by the petitioner R. Chandrasekhara Reddy praying that the election programme announced by the Collector vide his Proceedings Re.No. 2310/87.M dated 17-9-1987 shall be given effect to. THE main question which was considered by the learned single Judge in the Writ Petition was : Whether the Govt. is empowered to entertain a revision against the orders of merger passed by the Collector on 18-4-1987. It was argued on behalf of the Govt. that under Section 77 of the Act of the Govt. may of their own motion or on application made to them call for the record in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Act to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein and if in any case it appars to the Govt. that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly. It may be noted that in this case an appeal was filed under section 15-A (5) of the Act before the Registrar who had remitted back the matter to the Collector for fresh consideration according to law. THE revision before the Govt. was therefore filed against the orders of the Registrar. THE question to be considered is : Whether the Govt. has got jurisdiction to entertain a revision filed against the orders of the Registrar passed under Section 15-A (5) of the Act. It would be necessary to consider the provisions of Sec. 15-A (5) of the Act which are to the following effect: "15-A. Identification of viability of societies and consequences thereof : ... (5) Any person aggrieved by the order made and published under sub-section (2) may file an appeal, within fifteen days from the date of Publication of the order, to such authority as may be specified by the Government by an order made in this behalf and the appellate order passed under this sub-section shall be final : Provided that no order adversely effecting any person shall be passed under this sub-section unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation." It is evident from the reading of the above section that any person aggrieved by the order made and published under sub-section (2) of Section 15-A of the Act may file an appeal within 15 days from the date of publication of the order to such authority as may be specified by the Govt. by an order made in this behalf and the appellate order passed under sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the Act shall be final. An appeal has in fact been filed in this matter before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies who is specified as the appellate authority. Against the orders passed in appeal, the matter was taken up in revision under section 77 of the Act before the Govt. THE learned single Judge took the view that the words "shall be final" appearing in section 15-A (5) of the Act clearly indicate that there cannot be any further revision in the matter before the Govt. under section 77 of the Act. In other words in view of the apparent finality of the orders passed by the appellate authority, the learned Judge held that the order of the appellate authority in the matter of merger shall be treated as final, without any further relief being available to the parties concerned to agitate the same before any other authority. Nevertheless it is pertinent to note that under section 15-A (6) of the Act it is provided as under : "Notwithstanding anything in section 77, no revision shall lie against any order passed under this section". It is therefore clear that a revision under section 77 of the Act was expressly barred under section 15-A (6) of the Act. THE non-obstante clause starting with the words "Notwithstanding anything in section 77" can be susceptible only to one interpretation that in the presence of section 15-A (6) of the Act, no revision could be entertained under section 77.of the Act. However by Act XXI of 1985 sub-section (6) of Section 15-A of the Act has been omitted and this matter wasnot brought to the notice of the learned Judge at all. As a result of omission of Section 15-A (6) of the Act it cannot be said that the revision under section 77 of the Act before the Govt. is still barred as it was during the time when section 15-A (6) of the Act had a place on the Statute book. We are of the opinion that had the fact of omission of Sub-section (6) of Section 15-A of the Act been brought to the notice of the learned Judge, the matter would have been different and obviously it could not have been argued that the revision under section 77 of the Act is barred in the circumstances of the case. Section 77 of the Act itself invests power in the Govt. to entertain a revision petition against the orders of the Registrar either on their own motion or on an application made to them in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal as provided under section 76 (1) of the Act against the orders of the Registrar. THErefore the jurisdiction vested in the Govt. to entertain a revision on their own motion or on application made to them, cannot be held to have been barred under any circumstance. In this view of the matter the order under appeal is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. THE Govt. is directed to dispose of the revision pending before it within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law. No costs. Advocate's fees : Rs. 250/-
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.