Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Chennakesampalli Primary ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Its Principal ... on 23 November, 2024
APHC010288142014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No: 39360/2014
Between:
The Chennakesampalli Primary Agricultural ...PETITIONER(S)
Cooperative and Others
AND
The State Of A P Rep By Its Principal Secretary ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the following relief:-
"..... to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more
particularly writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the
third respondent in Rc.No.1297/2013-C2, dated 16.12.2014
ordering an inquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative
Societies Act on the constitution, management, working and
other irregularities in the financial commitments in the first
petitioner Society and the Memo of the first respondent in
No.12628/Coop.IV/2013, dated 03.12.2014, as illegal, arbitrary
and contrary to Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act
and consequently set aside the same and pass such other
orders........"
2. A news report was published noting irregularities in the
constitution, management, and financial commitments of the
Chennakesampalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited,
Badvel Mandal. Based on this and following a representation from the
M.L.A. of Badvel, the 3rd respondent appointed the Divisional
Cooperative Officer, Rajampet, to submit a preliminary report into the
conduct of the society. The enquiry found several irregularities and a
report was submitted. On 06.08.2013, the 3rd respondent, the District
Cooperative Officer of Kadapa, who vested with power issued
proceedings in Rc.No.1297/2013-C2 appointing the Assistant Registrar,
office of the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Rajampet to conduct
enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies
Act, 1964, (for short, „the Act‟) against the petitioner and one Sri
K.Subbarayudu.
3. The 2nd petitioner, aggrieved with the inquiry order, filed a revision
petition under Section 77 of the Act before the Principal Secretary of the
Government on 10.09.2013, to set aside the inquiry and its operation
suspended till the disposal of the revision petition. In addition to the
revision the 2nd petitioner filed W.P.No.31441 of 2013, challenging the
inquiry report conducted under Section 51 of the Act. The Court
disposed of the Writ Petition on 04.11.2013, directing the Principal
Secretary / 1st respondent to resolve the revision petition within four
weeks from the receipt of the order.
4. The APC and Principal Secretary to Government (AM & C) (FAC)
disposed of the revision petition filed by the 2nd petitioner on
03.12.2014, through Government Memo No. 12628/Coop.V/2013-2
dated 15.01.2014, remanding the case to the District Cooperative
Officer to conduct a local enquiry and fix responsibility not only on the
second petitioner but also on the entire management committee for the
alleged financial irregularities and embezzlement of society funds.
5. The second petitioner challenged the order of the revision petition
dated 15.01.2014 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
W.P.No.1900 of 2014. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing
the 1st respondent to reconsider the revision petition after giving the
petitioner notice and an opportunity of hearing, stipulating time four
weeks, and stayed the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated
06.08.2013 until the revision petition was disposed of. The revision
petition was disposed vide order dated 16.12.2014 in Rc.No.1297/2013-
C2. While disposing of the revision petition, the 3rd respondent ordered
a fresh inquiry under Section 51 of the Act regarding the constitution,
management, working, and financial irregularities of the first petitioner
society.
6. The proceedings dated 16.12.2014 were challenged in this Writ
Petition on the following grounds: (1) An inquiry cannot be conducted
under Section 51 of the Act at the request of an M.L.A.; and (2) A de
novo enquiry cannot be conducted against the society's committee
simply because the previous enquiry report was unsatisfactory, without
providing any reasons. Therefore, the petitioner requests that the Writ
Petition be allowed and the proceedings dated 16.12.2014 of the 3rd
respondent-District Cooperative Officer be set aside.
7. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4 have filed their counter, denying all
the allegations and assertions made in the affidavit submitted in support
of the Writ Petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the District
Registrar cannot order a de-novo enquiry under Section 51 of the Act.
The Registrar has the power to order a suo moto enquiry or an enquiry
based on the recommendation of either 1/5th of the total members of the
society or 1/3rd of the committee members. In this case, however, the
Registrar ordered the enquiry based on the recommendation of the
M.L.A. of Badvel, which is contrary to law. Hence the counsel prays for
the Writ Petition to be allowed.
9. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Choutuppal Handloom Weaver's Co-op. Society Ltd.,
Nalgonda Dist. and Ors. v. Commissioner of Handlooms and Director of
Handlooms and Textiles, A.P. and Ors1. and Mandava Laxmana Rao v.
Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Warangal District and Ors2.
for the proposition that ordering de-novo enquiry against the committee
of the society on the ground that earlier enquiry report is not satisfactory
and without assigning any reasons is unlawful in law.
10. The petitioners claim that the enquiry was conducted under
Section 51 of the Act based on the M.L.A.'s recommendation. However,
the enquiry was actually initiated suo moto by the District Cooperative
Officer after irregularities were found in a preliminary enquiry, which was
itself based on a news report and the M.L.A.'s representation.
Therefore, the petitioners' claim that the enquiry was ordered on the
M.L.A.'s recommendation is incorrect and cannot be accepted.
11. The petitioners argue that a de novo inquiry is not allowed under
Section 51 of the Act. The second petitioner challenged the preliminary
enquiry conducted by the Divisional Cooperative Officer under Section
77 of the Act. Due to the failure of the concerned authority to dispose of
the revision petition, the second petitioner filed W.P.No.31441 of 2013,
and the erstwhile High court of Andhra Pradesh directed the authorities
1999 (5) ALD 146
1996 (4) ALD 141
to dispose the revision petition accordingly the revision petition was
addressed and directed to conduct an enquiry into the irregularities
involving both the petitioners and the Chennakesampalli Primary
Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited. The 2nd petitioner challenged
this order in W.P.No.1900 of 2014, which was disposed of on
31.01.2014, directing a fresh enquiry against the petitioner.
12. As directed by this Court in W.P.No.1900 of 2014, the revision
petition filed by the 2nd petitioner was disposed of on 16.12.2014, with
an order for the District Cooperative Officer to conduct an inquiry into
the constitution, management, operations, and financial irregularities of
the Chennakesampalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited,
Badvel Mandal. Contrary to the petitioner's counsel's argument, no fresh
enquiry was conducted. However, following the direction of the former
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the revision petition was disposed of
with an order to conduct a new enquiry. This was not a de-novo enquiry
but a consequential action based on the High Court's directive, not a
suo-moto enquiry or one based on the MLA's recommendation.
Therefore, the petitioners' counsel's argument is not valid.
13. In view of the above discussion, the judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable, as no de novo
enquiry was conducted by the respondents. The respondents have
disposed of the revision petition in accordance with the High Court's
direction to conduct an enquiry.
14. This Court relies on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in L.N.Peta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society v.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Cooperative Societies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
and others3, wherein a learned single Judge of the High Court has held
that "even for an authority to exercise suo moto jurisdiction, he needs to
gather information from various external agencies. Merely because the
Commissioner has requested respondent No.2 to order an enquiry
under Section 51 following intervention by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, that
by itself would not change the nature and complexion of exercise of
jurisdiction by respondent No.2. At best, the intervention by the Hon'ble
Lokayukta may be an additional factor which would have firmed up the
opinion of respondent No.2 that an enquiry under Section 51 is more
appropriate than inspection under Section 52 of the Act. After all, the
(2015) 1 ALD 253
object of an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act is to ensure that
misfeasance and malfeasance, if any, indulged in by the persons in the
management of the Society are exposed and the loss if any caused on
account of such acts are recovered by initiating proceedings under
Section 60 of the Act. If a bona fide effort is made towards this direction,
the same cannot be allowed to be scuttled based on technicalities."
15. As seen from the above judgment, on the recommendation of the
external agencies, an enquiry can be conducted under Section 51 of the
Act. This Court, relying on the principle established in the judgment in
L.N.Peta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society v. The Government
of Andhra Pradesh (3 supra), disposed of W.P.No.30909 of 2013 by
order dated 10.09.2024. The order was later challenged in W.A.No.929
of 2024, and the Division Bench confirmed it by order dated 20.11.2024.
16. As argued by the petitioners‟ counsel the District Cooperative
Officer did not order a de novo enquiry, The Common High Court, while
disposing of W.P.No.1900 of 2014, directed the respondents to pass a
fresh order in the revision filed under Section 77 of the Act. The revision
petition was disposed of with an order for a fresh enquiry, not as
pleaded by the petitioner‟s counsel. The M.L.A. only directed the
concerned authority to investigate the matter after it was reported in the
newspapers not to conduct an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act.
Thereafter a preliminary enquiry was conducted basing upon the
preliminary enquiry the District Court-operative Registrar has ordered a
suo moto enquiry under section 51 of the act. Therefore, the petitioners
cannot argue that the respondents are not authorized to conduct the
inquiry or that the enquiry was ordered based on the M.L.A.'s
recommendation under Section 51 of the Act. The inquiry was initiated
by the District Cooperative Officer suo motu, based on news reports
about irregularities at Chennakesampalli Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Society Limited, Badvel Mandal, after a preliminary inquiry
was conducted.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ
Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 23.11.2024
siva
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.39360 OF 2014
Date: 23.11.2024
siva
