GUNTUR WEAVERS COOPERATIVE PRODUCTION SALE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES GUNTUR
LAWS(APH)-1992-7-29
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 06,1992

GUNTUR WEAVERS COOPERATIVE PRODUCTION, SALE SOCIETY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES, GUNTUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These two writ petitions arise under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). While WP No. 13023 of 1988 was filed by the Society itself, questioning the action of initiation of proceedings under Sec. 34(1) of the Act to supersede the Committee, W P No. 13029 of 1988 was filed by D. Vasantha Rao, who is the Manager of the Society viz., the Guntur Weavers Co-operative Production and Sale Society Ltd, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as 'the society'). The power of suspension pending enquiry is not exercised by the first respondent herein, instead be cites section 59 of the Act and directs the Society to place Mr. D. Vasantha Rao, the petitioner in W P No. 13029 of 1988 under suspension. Section 59 of the Act can be invoked only when there is an audit under section 50, or an enquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under sections 52 or 53 of the Act and during the course of the said audit, enquiry or inspection there is suspension of a paid Officer or a servam of a society. In that event, the power is conferred upon the Registrar (be it Registrar under sec. 3(1) or an officer delegated with the powers of Registrar under Sec 3 (2) of the Act) to direct the Manning Committee of the Society to place the said paid Officer or a servant of the society under suspension, pending investigation and disposal of the matter. But admittedly no such audit inquiry or inspection took place preceding the impugned order dated 23-7-88 and as such the same cannot be sustained as an order passed under section 59 of the Act. Infact, the impugned order itself does not refer'to any audit, enquiry or inspection, but it refers to some other report not connected with either audit under Sec. 50 or an enquiry under sec. 51 or an inspection under sections 52 or 53 of the Act.
(2.)In the circumstances, the impugned order directing the Managing Committee of the Society to place its Manager under suspension is clearly without jurisdiction and as such it is setaside. With regard to the proceedings initiated under section 34(1) of the Act, seeking to supersede the Managing Committee of the society the same has become infructuous, as it is stated by Mr. B V Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No. 13023 of 1988 that a new Managing Committee has been elected in the recently conducted elections and as such the Writ Petition No. 13023 of 1988 is dismissed as infructuous, while WP No 13029 of 8S is allowed. However, it is made clear that W P No. 13029 of 1988 is allowed only on the ground of jurisdiction and not on merits and it is open to the appropriate authorities to exercise power under sec. 59 of the Act if the situation so warrants, subject to fulfilment of the condition.
(3.)In the result, WP No. 13023 of 1988 is dismissed as infructuous and W P No. 13029 of 1988 is allowed. No Order as to costs. Advocate's fee is Rs. 300/- in each case.
;


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