Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs And on 10 September, 2024
APHC010792882013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No: 30909/2013
Between:
N.Ratna Kumar, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. L J VEERA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. B S REDDY
2. T VISHNU TEJA
3. GP FOR COOPERATION
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order of Direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents particularly the 2nd respondent in ordering inquiry
U/s.51 of A.P.Cooperative Societies Act into affairs of
Somireddipally Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society in his
Rc.No.1314/2013-C2 dated 19.10.2013 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary,
highhanded, malafide, motivated and discriminative and against
statutory provisions including Section 51 of the Act and
consequently set aside the orders passed by the 2 nd respondent in
his Rc.No.1314/2013-C2, dated 19.10.2013 and pass such other
order....."
2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent-District
Cooperative Officer, Kadapa, has initiated proceedings against the
petitioner under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative
Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), in the affairs of Somireddypalli
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, vide proceedings in
Rc.No.1314/2013-C2, dated 19.10.2013, and initiation of the impugned
proceedings basing upon the suggestion of the Chief Project Officer,
ICDP, Kadapa, and on the paper clippings made by the 4th respondent,
ordering an enquiry is contrary to law and in violation of the provisions
of Section 51 of the Act and an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act can
be initiated on his own motion or on the recommendation of the 1/3rd of
the committee or 1/5th of the members of the society. Where in this
case, the 2nd respondent has initiated the proceedings under Section 51
of the Act at the suggestion of the Chief Project Officer, ICDP, Kadapa,
which is contrary to Section 51 of the Act and, therefore, prayed to allow
the Writ Petition by setting aside the initiation of the proceedings under
Section 51 of the Act.
3. And the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the
judgment of the composite High Court in the case of T.Satyanarayana v.
Joint Registrar, District Cooperative Officer, West-Godavari District,
Eluru and others1, where in the said case, the 4th respondent therein
and six others of the Society submitted a representation dated
20.06.2007 to the 1st respondent therein-Joint Registrar, with a request
to cause enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, and the said
representation does not satisfy the requirement under Section 51 of the
Act and allowed the said Writ Petition.
4. As seen from the facts of the above case of T.Satyanarayana (1
supra), an enquiry was conducted under Section 52 of the Act and the
4th respondent therein and six others have failed their attempts under
Section 52 of the Act. Therefore, another representation dated
2009 (4) ALT 724
28.06.2007 was presented to the 1st respondent-Joint Registrar to
conduct enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. On the said premise,
learned single Judge has set aside the enquiry under Section 51 of the
Act.
5. Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
relied on the judgment of the composite High Court in Araja Narasimha
Rao v. District Cooperative Officer/Joint Registrar, Krishna District,
Machilipatnam2, where a similar issue has came up for consideration,
as raised in the Writ Petition. Where in the said case also, an enquiry
was initiated at the recommendation of the local M.L.A. addressed a
letter for initiating action against the management of the society. The
Court dealt that any recommendation shall be treated as the information
that can constitute the basis for initiation of the enquiry under Section 51
of the Act and that cannot be restricted to any source and observed
thus:
"Basically, the allegation of the petitioner, that the inquiry was
initiated at the instance of the local Legislator; is denied, and it
is categorically leaded that the 1st respondent took the step on
the basis of the report submitted by the Audit Officer. In this
regard, it needs to be noted that, once the 1st respondent is
2007 (5) ALD 698
conferred with the power to order enquiry suo motu, the
information that can constitute the basis for such initiation,
cannot be restricted to any source. As long as the suo motu
power is conferred, even a representation received from any
source, can be treated as the basis. The very purpose of
conferring suo motu power, is to relieve the concerned
authority from the rigor of depending any definite source, for
initiation of the proceedings. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to accept the contention, advanced on behalf of the
petitioner."
6. Similarly, in another judgment of the composite High Court 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 others 3,
where in the said case, the enquiry was initiated following the
intervention of the Hon'ble Lokayukta. Where in the said case, the
same contention was raised and the Court below rejected the
contention raised therein and observed that the object of an inquiry
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
(2015) 1 ALD 253 = (2015) 2 ALT 485
acts are recovered by initiating proceedings under Section 60 of the Act
and if a bona fide effort is made towards this direction, the same cannot
be allowed to be scuttled based on technicalities. And further observed
that in the absence of allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner
against exercise of power by respondent No.2, the Court is of the
opinion that the Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution shall not prevent an inquiry intended to be
held for unearthing fraud, if any, allegedly committed in disbursement of
public money and on the ground of technicalities.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on another
judgment of this Court in Jalligampala Venkata Satyamurthy and others
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others4, wherein the learned single
Judge of this Court held that for the exercise of the power, particularly of
his own motion, the Registrar has to get information either personally or
from other sources, if he inspects the books personally in the course of
discharge of his duties he may find an irregularity, which will have to be
further investigated under Section 51 of the Act, if he gets some credible
information, it has no bar under Section 51 of the Act for ordering
2020 (1) ALD 421 = 2019 (6) ALT 149
enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and the Court opined that nothing
prohibits the District Registrar for initiating action.
8. As seen from the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in T.Satyanarayana's case (1 supra), an information
received from other sources is a basis for initiation of enquiry under
Section 51 of the Act, that does not mean that the Registrar has initiated
the proceedings not by suo motu or at the behest of other persons.
9. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
T.Satyanarayana's case (1 supra) is not applicable to the present facts
of the case, as the enquiry was ordered in the said case and the
respondents in that case have failed their attempts under Section 52 of
the Act and requested to conduct enquiry under Section 51 of the Act.
10. In all the above judgments, it was categorically held that
information from other sources is a ground for initiation of enquiry under
Section 51 of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the District
Cooperative Officer has ordered enquiry under Section 51 of the Act,
basing upon the sources/information received from Chief Project Officer,
ICDP and the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondents are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. In
view of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments, relied on by
the learned counsel for the respondents, the contention raised by the
petitioner that the ordering an enquiry is contrary to Section 51 of the
Act, is unsustainable. The information that at all received from the Chief
Project Officer, ICDP is a cause or source to conduct enquiry under
Section 51 of the Act.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that suo
motu ordering an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act by the Registrar is
non-application of mind and prayed to set aside the enquiry conducted
under Section 51 of the Act.
12. The non-application of mind arises under two occasions or
circumstances, when the order impugned does not contain any reason
and without jurisdiction. Ordering of an enquiry under Section 51 of the
Act is an administrative measure to make sure the Registrar can initiate
surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act or not and to hold an
enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of the
society, after giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer to make his
representation. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is not a valid contention and it is untenable. For raising
untenable grounds, this Court is inclined to impose costs to the
petitioner.
13. Accordingly, costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) is
imposed against the petitioner and the same shall be paid to the Andhra
Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association within a period of two
weeks. No merit in the contention raised by the petitioner, Writ Petition
fails and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
14. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the
Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association within a period of
two weeks.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 10.09.2024
siva
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.30909 of 2013
Date: 10.09.2024
siva
