CHINTALA APPALA SWAMY Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES PARVATHIPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee of Piridi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd. The first petitioner is its President. They were elected on 25th October, 1981. The total strength of the Managing Committee is eleven. Of the eleven members, seven tendered their resignation on 11th January, 1983, which was accepted by the appropriate authority on 25th February, 1983, leaving only four members on the Committee including the President. On 23rd February, 1983, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed the impugned Order appointing the Taluk Co-operative Officer, Bobbili as parttime person-in-charge of the said society to. manage the affairs of the said Society for a period of six months from the date of assumption of the charge or till the elected committee assumes office, whichever is earlier. This appointment was made on the ground that after the resignation of seven members and its acceptance, the remaining four members do not constitute the quorum, as prescribed under rule 22-A of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (as amended). Indeed the impugned order says that there is no valid committee in office to manage the affairs of the society and therefore, action under section 32 (1) was being taken.

(2.) Mr. P.Babulu Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged two contentions before me:

(3.) According to the approved bye-laws of the society., it is not in dispute that the quorum is four. The question is whether this bye law survives, or subsists after the amendment to rule 23 introduced by G. O. Ms. No. 388, dated 2nd November, 1982. Mr. Babulu Reddy's reasoning on this score, runs as follows: At the time of the registration of the society, a society has to submit inter alia four copies of the proposed bye-laws of the society as required by section 6 (2) (a), which have to be examined by the Deputy Registrar to see whether they are not contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and then register the society with those bye-laws. Once the bye-laws are so registered, they govern the working of the society. Further under section 31 of the Act, the Managing Committee has to be constituted in accordance with the bye-laws and this Managing Committee has to manage the affairs of the society in accordance with the bye-laws. Any subsequent amendment or change in the rules cannot have the automatic effect of superseding or nullifying the bye-laws which may be inconsistent with the amended rule or new Rule, as the case may be. The bye-laws continue to be effective and operative, until they are changed to bring them in accordance with the Rules, according to the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules. Accordingly, (it is argued) the proviso inserted by, the aforesaid amendment in rule 23 cannot have the effect of nullifying or superseding the bye-law of the society relating to quorum; the bye-law as it now stands still operates to the exclusion of the aforesaid proviso to rule 23.