GUNTUR WEAVERS COOPERATIVE PRODUCTION SALE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES GUNTUR
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GUNTUR WEAVERS COOPERATIVE PRODUCTION, SALE SOCIETY LIMITED
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES, GUNTUR
Click here to view full 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.