Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Balaji Handloom Weavers Cooperative ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 19 September, 2024
1
APHC010602672014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 20709/2014
Between:
Balaji Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production And Sale ...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B SESIBUSHAN RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
".....declare the proceedings in Rc.No.4688/2014-F1/3, dated
07.07.2014 of the 1st respondent is illegal and violation of Section 51 of A.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and consequently set aside the proceedings
in Rc.No.4688/2014-F1/3, dated 07072014 of the 1st respondent and to pass
such other order or orders......"
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner's society was
registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies
Act, 1964 (for short "APCS Act, 1964") and its members are all hails from
weavers community eking out their livelihood by weaving. The Government of
India announced a policy for revival, reform and restructuring of Handlooms by
providing loan with 100% repayment with 0.25% interest to those societies
who conducted audit on the affairs of the society for three consecutive years.
Subsequently, modified guidelines were issued to avail the said scheme.
Those are the statutory audit of PWCs would be completed up to 2011-12 and
the eligibility of cooperative societies to be decided on the basis of statutory
audit report up to 2011-12 to provide term loan and working capital loan at the
interest rate at 6% to handloom sector, the quantum of interest, subsidy etc.,
and those societies who fulfill the above requisites, are entitled to avail the
scheme Revival, Reform and Restructuring package for Handloom sector.
There would be over all ceiling of Rs.50,000/- per individual beneficiary as far
as funding under the scheme.
3. While so, the 2nd respondent issued orders for conducting enquiry under
Section 51 of APCS Act, 1964 vide proceedings in Rc.No.4688/2014/F1/3,
dated 07.07.2014 and the said enquiry was ordered basing on the complaint
made by one C.Supraja, Municipal Councilor, 9th ward, Srikalahasti to the
Minister of Operation alleging mis-utilization of funds by the petitioner's
society, though the society has received totaling Rs.13,06,393/- under the
aforesaid Government schemes, but violated the scheme guidelines and draw
the funds within one week and spend money for the purpose of raw material
and for payment of wages. The respondent authorities failed to consider the
conditions stipulated before issuing the impugned proceedings and the said
enquiry was made on account of political rivalry, which is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence the present writ petition is filed.
4. This Court vide order dated 23.07.2014, passed the interim order which
reads as under:
"...A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the
enquiry is initiated at the instance of the representation dated
12.06.2014 made by the Municipal Councilor addressed to the
Minister of Cooperation, which is prima facie, not inconsonance
with Section 51 of the Act.
In view of the same, there shall be interim stay as prayed
for."
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, appearing for
the respondents.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in
the case of Mandava Laxmana Rao v. Primary Agricultural Co-operative
Society, Warangal District and others1, wherein the erstwhile High Court
held at para No.2 as follows:
".... Admittedly the inquiry proceedings were not initiated suo
motu by the Registrar as it was done under the directions of the
Hon. Minister on the application. Neither one-third of the
1996 (4) ALD 141
members of the committee nor of not less than one-fifth of the
total number of members of the society made an application to
the Registrar making allegations against the petitioner about the
alleged misappropriation of the funds of the first respondent-
society. So none of the grounds mentioned in Section 51 of the
Act were satisfied making a ground to initiate the enquiry
proceedings in question. The initiation of the proceedings is ab
initio void as no just or reasonable grounds are made out
attracting the provisions of Section 51 of the Act....."
8. On perusal of the above judgment, the erstwhile High Court while
observing that the initiation of the inquiry proceedings is void ab initio, has set
aside the impugned proceedings and ordered the respondent authorities to
conduct regular enquiry into the matter afresh after giving reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner. The erstwhile High Court further held that till the
said process is completed, to safeguard the interests of the public funds, the
petitioner is restrained from alienating the properties standing in his name.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and by following the
above judgment (supra), the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities, to conduct
regular enquiry afresh.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings
vide Rc.No.4688/2014-F1/3, dated 07.07.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent,
are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to conduct a
regular enquiry into the matter afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to
the petitioner and take necessary action against the concerned, within a
period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till
such time, the petitioner-society is restrained from alienating the properties
standing in its name. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
ARR
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Writ Petition No.20709 of 2014
Date: 19.09.2024
ARR
