Telangana High Court
L.Vittal Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 4689 OF 2024
ORDER:
Legality of the Notice Rc. No. 339/2024-C dated 09.02.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent proposing a no- confidence motion meeting on 28.02.2024 at 11:30 AM at the premises of the 2nd respondent under Section 34-A (2) of the Telangana Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), deeming it arbitrary and contrary to the mentioned Act, is challenged in this Writ Petition is filed.
2. Petitioner, it is stated, holds the position of President in the 2nd respondent - Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Batasingaram, having been elected as a member/director in February 2020, alongside 12 other members. Based on a notice/representation dated 08.02.2024 allegedly signed by nine members and submitted to the 3rd respondent under Section 34-A (2) of the Act, the subject impugned notice was issued proposing to conduct no-confidence motion against petitioner on 28.02.2024. The grievance of petitioner is that the notice/representation dated 08.02.2024 lacks clarity regarding submission process. It bears the signatures of two witnesses, yet fails to specify which of the two signed directors delivered it to the 3rd respondent. Additionally, 2 notice does not mention the names of individuals who allegedly submitted it. Upon examination, it is evident that purpose of notice was to request a meeting concerning the petitioner.
It is stated that Section 34-A (1) of the Act outlines the procedure for expressing want of confidence, requiring not less than half of the total elected members to sign and deliver the notice personally by any two signing members to the Registrar. The notice/representation dated 08.02.2024 fails to comply with Section 34-A (1) & (2) of the Act, which stipulates that two individuals who sign the notice must submit it to the Registrar. However, the notice does not specify who submitted it to the Registrar, thus violating the provisions of the Act. The Act does not authorize the 3rd respondent to proceed with a no- confidence motion without proper delivery of a notice of intention by two directors. Additionally, upon close examination, there appears to be tampering with the date in the reference column of the notice, raising suspicions regarding its authenticity.
Further, it is stated, the impugned notice does not indicate whether a copy of the proposed motion was enclosed with the notice dated 09.02.2024, a mandatory requirement under Section 34-A (2) of the Act. Notably, the notice dated 09.02.2024 was not served on petitioner. Subsequently, on 3 petitioner made an Application on 10.02.2024 under the Right to Information Act for issuance of copy of notice dated 08.02.2024, which was not granted. Another application was made on 13.02.2024, following which the notice was finally issued.
The impugned notice was directed to be placed on the notice boards of the 2nd respondent, District Collector, and Mandal Praja Parishad Office, Abdullapurmet. A perusal of Rule 24-A (3) of Telangana Co-Operative Society Rules, 1964 reveals that a copy of the notice should be affixed on the notice board of the Society and the office of the Registrar. The proviso states that if the Society's area extends to more than one Panchayat or Mandal Office, notice must be affixed in all such offices. In this case, the Society's operational area encompasses Abdullapurmet Mandal, including Batasingaram, Kavadpalli, Abdulapur, Pidlipur, Inamguda, Gunthapalli, Laskarguda, Majidpur, Balijaguda, Taramatipet, Gowrelli, Anajipur, Quthbullapur, Jafarguda, and municipalities like Peddamberpet, Pasumamula, and Maripalle. The impugned notice does not mention display of notices in all relevant places such as villages/panchayats within the 2nd respondent operational area, violating Rule-24A.
It is relevant to mention that one of the members listed in the notice dated 08.02.2024 at S.No.3, who has signed, 4 is disqualified from continuing as a member and to vote as per bye-law No.23A due to defaulting on loans. The statement of loan account reveals that she is liable to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as of 08.04.2022. Similarly, other signatories like Mogulla Chinna Yadi Reddy at S.No.4, Mekala Ramulu at S.No.9, and Ganta Swapna Reddy at S.No.6 are also defaulters with respective liabilities. If these disqualified members are excluded, the remaining signatories amount to only 5 out of 13 total elected members, falling short of the required 50%. As per the judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (Appeal Civil No.4079 of 2004) dated 04.01.2005 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a minimum of 7 members representing 50% of the total elected members, is required to initiate a no-confidence motion.
Held: "We do not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted by the High Court. The rule of rounding off based on logic and common sense is: if part is one-half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done. If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection in general category, the respondent was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment."
Hence, petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned notice dated 09.02.2024, as its enforcement would prejudice the petitioner's rights.
5
3. By order dated 22.02.2024, this Court issued notice to the respondents, at the same time, directed that no- confidence motion meeting scheduled to be held on 28.02.2024 may go on, but the official respondents were directed not to declare the results until further orders.
4. Pursuant to the notice, the 3rd respondent filed a comprehensive counter-affidavit, stating that 9 out of the total 13 committee members personally attended the 3rd Respondent Office on 08.02.2024, submitting proposals and a notice of no confidence motion, urging convening of a meeting. She clarifies the role of two accompanying members, whose signatures were obtained merely as witnesses, in compliance with statutory requirements. Under Section 34-A(2), the proposals of no confidence motion shall be delivered in person by any two members singing on the notice. In the instant case, all 9 members personally submitted the notice, therefore, the question of taking signatures of any of two members as witnesses does not arise. Nonetheless, the respondent recorded the signatures of two accompanying members to document the motion's submission. This action ensures procedural transparency and compliance with legal requirements, as stipulated by Section 34-A(2) of the Act.
6
The respondent emphasizes adherence to Rule 24A(1) of the Rules, which mandates the Registrar to convene a committee meeting upon receiving a motion expressing no confidence. Accordingly, they scheduled a meeting for 28.02.2024 at 11.00 AM, to be held at FSCS, Batasingaram, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to deliberate and vote on the no-confidence motion and notice was issued under Rc. No. 339/2024-C, dated 09.02.2024, informing the Managing Committee members of the meeting. This action aligns with the provision of Rule 24A(1) and ensures procedural compliance with the Telangana Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964.
According to this respondent, Section 34-A mandates that a written notice of intention for a motion, signed by at least half of the total elected committee members, must be submitted to the Registrar. With a total of 13 elected committee members, half would constitute 7 members, however, 9 elected committee members submitted the motion against petitioner. The 3rd respondent issued impugned notice and served it on all committee members including petitioner, who received it on 09.02.2024, as evidenced by the acknowledgment. Additionally, the notice was displayed on various Notice Boards, including those of the District Collector, District Cooperative Officer, FSCS, Batasingaram, MPDO, Abdullapurmet, Municipal 7 Commissioner, Abdullapurmet, HDCCB Ltd, Nampally, and Central Bank of India, Abdullapurmet, in compliance with Rule 24(A) of the TCS Act, 1964. Copies of notices were affixed at MPDO Office and Municipal Office in Abdullapurmet fulfilling the legal requirements. The Rule mandates affixing of notices either on Panchayat Offices or Mandal Offices, both of which were carried out effectively in this case. Proviso 1 of Rule 24-A is not obligatory but rather one of several methods of service. Failure to affix notices on Panchayat or Mandal Office notice boards does not prejudice either petitioner or the 2nd respondent Society, as the primary purpose is to ascertain whether the majority of committee members have lost confidence in the Petitioner. Petitioner requested copies of the no-confidence motion notice through an RTI Application and a direct request to the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent promptly provided the requested documents on the same day, which petitioner duly acknowledged.
It is stated that petitioner's claim that out of nine committee members (Sl. Nos 3, 4, 6, and 9) who signed no- confidence motion proposal were disqualified is unfounded. As of now, these members have not been officially declared disqualified. According to Section 71-A, it is the responsibility of the 2nd respondent Society to inform the Registrar and provide 8 details for recovery of dues from defaulting members. However, as of the submission date of the motion, no such Application was made against the alleged defaulters, and thus, they remain valid committee members. Their signatures on the no- confidence motion are therefore legally sound.
5. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri L. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation.
6. The main allegation of petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has deviated from the procedure contemplated under Section 34-A (1) and (2) of the Act. The notice does not specify who submitted it to the Registrar, thus violating the provisions of the Act. The Act does not authorize the 3rd respondent to proceed with a no-confidence motion without proper delivery of a notice of intention by two directors. For which, the 3rd respondent stated in the counter that out of 13 committee members, nine personally attended the 3rd Respondent Office on 08.02.2024, submitted notice of no confidence motion urging convening of a meeting. Under Section 34-A(2), proposals of no confidence motion shall be delivered in person by any two members singing on the notice. In the instant case, all 9 members personally submitted the notice, therefore, the question of taking signatures of any of two members as 9 witnesses does not arise. Nonetheless, the respondent recorded the signatures of two accompanying members as witnesses to document the motion's submission. Hence, the contention of learned Senior Counsel does not hold much water.
7. Another ground taken by the learned Senior Counsel is the impugned notice does not indicate whether a copy of the proposed motion was enclosed or not, and the notice was not served on petitioner. Subsequently, on petitioner making Application on 13.02.2024 under the Right to Information Act, copy of notice was furnished, under due acknowledgment. Along with the counter-affidavit, the 3rd respondent annexed the letter addressed by her to petitioner dated 13.02.2024. The said contention was answered accordingly.
8. The prime allegation of petitioner is that the members arrayed at Sl.Nos. 3, 4, 9 and 6 were disqualified as they are defaulters with respective liabilities. If they are excluded, remaining signatories amount to only 5 out of 13 total elected members, falling short of the required 50%. For the said submission, the 3rd respondent stated that as of now, these members have not been officially declared disqualified. Here it is to be seen, as per Section 71-A, it is the responsibility of the 2nd respondent Society to inform the Registrar and provide details 10 for recovery of dues from defaulting members. However, as of the submission date of the motion, no such Application was made against the alleged defaulter, thus, they remain valid committee members. Their signatures on the no-confidence motion are therefore legally sound.
9. As regards failure to comply with Rule 24-A (3) of the Rules, learned Government Pleader submits that copies of notices were affixed at MPDO Office and Municipal Office in Abdullapurmet fulfilling the legal requirements. The Rule mandates affixing of notices either on Panchayat Offices or Mandal Offices, both of which were carried out effectively in this case. Proviso 1 of Rule 24-A is not obligatory but rather one of several methods of service. Failure to affix notices on Panchayat or Mandal Office notice boards does not prejudice either petitioner or the 2nd respondent Society, as the primary purpose is to ascertain whether the majority of committee members have lost confidence in the Petitioner.
10. The District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District has also produced the minutes of the meeting held on 28.02.2024 in a sealed cover, perusal of which shows that as per Section 34-A(4) of TCA Act,1964 the quorum for the No- confidence motion meeting shall be majority of the total members of the committee including vacancies , if any. As (9) 11 out of (13) managing voted in favour of the No-Confidence motion moved against the President, the No-confidence is succeeded. However, as per the directions of the Hon' ble High Court in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 4689 of 2024, the No-confidence motion meeting is conducted but the results are not declared.
11. The foregoing discussion shows that at every stage, the 3rd respondent has taken care to ensure that the procedure as mandated in Section 34-A read with Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules is complied with, which forces this Court to take a view that the contentions of learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanced. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 20th March 2024 ksld