Telangana High Court

R.Anjaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 2 December, 2022

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                             W.P.No.35567 of 2022
ORDER

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer;

" to issue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ mandamus declaring that

a) proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.1412/2016-H, dated 08.09.2022 appointing 4th respondent as the official person in- charge as illegal and arbitrary and is violative of Section 32(7)(A), Sub Rule 3 of Rule 23 (A)(A)(A) and Sub Rule 5 of Rule 23 (A)(A)(A) of Telangana Cooperative Society Rules and therefore, liable to be quashed".

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr. S. Surender Rao,

representing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. M.

Srinivasa Rao submits that the Muthyala Rao Cooperative Housing

Society was formed and the area of operation of the society is limited to

Jagjivan Nagar Colony in Sy.No.218/1/3, Ramakrishnapuram,

Hyderabad and the byelaw 15 speaks about the affairs of the society

and it declares that the management shall vests with the Board of

Directors 11 in number. He submits that petitioner No.2 was elected as

Director from SC/ST category, respondent Nos.6 and 8 were elected

from women category and petitioner Nos.3,4 and 5 were elected as

Directors from open category and the election notification was issued

on 27-12-2021 and the election officer has issued a notice

dated 11-01-2022 intimating to the elected members that meeting of

the managing committee will be held at 8.30 am on 12-01-2022 and

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

also issued a certificate dated 11-01-2022 to the effect that the

petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 10 were elected as Managing

Committee members of Muthyala Rao Cooperative Housing Society

Limited. He submits that petitioner No.1 was elected as President and

petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were elected as Vice President, Secretary and

Treasurers respectively and the others were shown as Managing

Committee members and the Election Officer has made a

comprehensive report in that regard. He submits that respondent

Nos.5 to 10 appears to have addressed resignation letters to the

Deputy Registrar/DCO and they sent the copies of the said resignation

letters through DTDC courier to petitioner No.1, who is the President of

the Society. Learned Senior Counsel submits that respondent No.3 is

acting in hasty manner as even before receipt of the letters of

resignation dated 02-09-2022 of respondent Nos.5 to 10 through the

known process of service, he has jumped into action and issued memo

dated 02-09-2022 to the Assistant Registrar, Malkajgiri Circle, to submit

a report on the resignations of respondent Nos.5 to 10. He submits that

petitioner No.1 has received the resignation through DTDC on 05-09-

2022 and hence, there is no possibility of respondent No.3 in receiving

the said resignation letters on 02-09-2022 itself and in fact, even if the

resignation letters are handed over to respondent No.3, he is not

empowered in law to receive or entertain them. He submits that as per

the byelaw No.16(A), a Director intending to resign has to send the

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

letter of resignation to the Secretary of the Society and according to

him, they are not letters of resignation legally. He further submits that

Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 23(A)(A)(A) of Telangana Co-operative Societies

Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules') enables member or members of

committee may resign their seats by sending the resignation to the

CEO of the society and petitioner No.1, as President of the Society, is

the CEO of the Society and if CEO is understood to be a paid

Secretary, there is no paid Secretary to the Society. Learned Senior

Counsel further submits that respondent No.3 cannot either receive or

entertain the letter of resignation allegedly sent by respondent Nos.5 to

10 and it was impermissible to him to jump into action and instruct the

Assistant Registrar, Malkajgiri Circle, to sent the factual report dated

06-09-2022 and it was also impermissible to the Assistant Registrar to

make report and sent it to respondent No.3, who in turn, to initiate

action under Section 32(7)(A)(1) of the Telangana Cooperative

Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act") and he cannot come to a

conclusion that there is no committee or it is not possible to call general

body meeting for the purpose of conducting elections of the members

of the committee. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the term

of office of committee and its office bearers, who were elected in

accordance with sub-section 5 of Section 31 of the Act shall be 5 years

as provided by Section 31(2)(A) of the Act. He submits that the

elections were conducted about 9 months back and there is no

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

occasion to call for a general meeting for the purpose of conducting

elections of members of committee. He submits that the exercise of

powers under Section 31(7)(A) of the Act is illegal and contrary to the

said provisions itself. The respondents cannot take support from Sub-

rule 5 of Rule 23(A)(A)(A) of the Rules without first being satisfied of

the situation contemplated under Section 32(7)(A)(1) of the Act. He

further submits that even for the purpose of exercising the power

conferred by Sub- rule 5 of Rule 23(A)(A)(A) of the Rules, there must

be resignation of entire managing committee or resignation of majority

of the managing committee and the resolution spoken to in Sub-rule 5

of Rule 23(A)(A)(A) of the Rules shall be taken to be one of legal

resignation and if the resignation is not legally tendered, such

resignation or resignations cannot form the basis for exercising power

under Rule 23(A)(A)(A)(5) of the Rules. He submits that appointing an

official as person-in-charge runs contrary to the democratic philosophy

and the supersession of society or suspension of board could be

resorted to only in respect of the societies which have a Government

share holding or loan or financial assistance or any guarantee by a

Government. In this case, Society does not have any Government

share holding nor did it receive any loan or financial assistance from

the Government nor did the Government stood guarantee for any loan

incurred by the Government. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the

entire action of the Deputy Registrar is malafide and is liable to be set

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

aside. He has relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court

in Pamarthy Veeraswamy vs. The Collector (Cooperation),

Chilakalpudi and others1, wherein it was held as under;

"5. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Registrar would show that it was made on the basis on an assumption that there was no committee and that there was no possibility to convene the Board meeting after the resignations of the 7 directors and transact any business because the remaining four Directors could not constitute quorum of the meeting either to accept the resignations or to transact business of the Bank. It must be noted that the conclusion of the Registrar that there was no committee of the bank was an inference drawn by him from the fact that the remaining four Directors of the Committee could not constitute a quorum and could not therefore discharge the functions of the committee as required under the provisions of the act. It is for that reasons that he thought that there was no valid committee in the eye of the law. It was on that basis that he invoked Sec. 32(7) of the Act. The question thus arises whether this reasoning of the Registrar and this inference of the Registrar on the basis of which the impugned order had been made could be sustained. It is somewhat strange to say that a committee elected for a fixed period of three years was thought to have disappeared with the resignation of a few members. This reasoning did not take note of the continued resignation. In the Act we find no warrant equating a non-functioning committee with a non-existing committee. A non- functioning committee exists but does not function whiles question of its functioning well or ill cannot arise. Clearly in this case there was a committee without quorum. We cannot therefore agree with the conclusion of the Registrar that there was no committee at all . In our view, only correct way of describing the situation is to say that there was a committee but it does not and could not function. If that were to be so Sec. 32(7) can have no application to such a situation. Section 32(7) will have application only when there is no committee. There are two provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act which deal separately with the two different types of situations above mentioned. Sec. 32(8) deals with committee at all while Sec. 34(1) deals with that situation when there is a non-functioning committee . These provisions which deal with two different situations should not be compared with one another. Where the affairs of the society had fallen by the way side due to the inept handling and improper functioning o f the managing committee which is existing the Act holds such a committee responsible for mal-administration and provides for the exercise of correctional jurisdiction by the Registrar under Sec. 34(1) of the Act. The exercise of that correctional jurisdiction calls for giving of a notice and hearing to the committee. When the committee is held in such an inquiry guilty of malfunctioning the Act provides for supersession of such a committee. But where there is no committee at all and consequently the question of functioning well or ill cannot arise. Section 32(7) provides for the appointment of a person-in- charge in place of the Committee. In such a situation there can arise no question of notice or hearing being given to the committee. It is a pure question of filling up of a vacuum. These are two separate and distinct situations and are dealt with by two provisions which are separate and distinct. Section 34(1) provides for supercession of an existing committee

1984 LF (AP)284

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

and Sec. 32(7) provides for appointing some one in the place of the committee. The Registrar clearly erred in overlooking these two situations; Section 30(1) (a) of the Act vests the ultimate authority of a Society in the general body. Under Sec. 31 the general body of the society constitutes a committee in accordance with the bye-laws and entrusts the management of the affairs of the society to such a committee. A committee so constituted in accordance with the bye-laws by the general body acquires authority to manage the affairs of the society for a term. Now that collegiate body once elected and called into being continues irrespective of the changes that it may undergo in its composition some other. These various provisions would show that under the Act the existence of a committee is dependant upon act of entrustment of management by the general body and not upon the exercise of the authority by the committee. A non-functioning Government is also a Government. It has the right to manage the affairs of the society during the term of its office. In this case the term of the members is three years. If they do not exercise the powers during these 3 years the committee for that reason cannot be said to have ceased to exist. It only means the committee is not functioning properly. Then the committee may be liable to be superseded under S. 34(1) of the Act. But a person-in-charge could not be appointed under S. 32(7) of the Act. These provisions have been enacted on the faith that those who have been elected to the committee as members would discharge their powers and perform their duties in good faith and act according to the letter and spirit of A.P. Co- operative Societies Act. When they betray that faith and confidence reposed in them, the Act provides for taking correctional disciplinary action under S. 34(1). The Section says:

"If in the opinion of the Registrar the Committee is not functioning properly or wilfully disobeys or wilfully fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued by the Registrar under this Act or the rules, he may after giving the committee an opportunity of making its representation, by order supersede the committee from a specified date; and appoint either a person (herein after referred to as the special Officer) or a committee of two or more persons (hereinafter referred to as the managing committee) to manage the affairs of the society for a period, not exceeding two years."

3. The unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 10 have filed counter

affidavit, and reiterating the counter averments, learned counsel for the

unofficial respondents Mr. D. Goverdhana Chary, submits that there is

no illegality in the order passed by the respondents because when the

unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 10 have tendered their resignations,

petitioner No.1 has refused to receive the same and as such, they have

approached the Deputy Registrar and the Deputy Registrar has rightly

taken the decision. He submits that when the majority of members of

the Managing Committee have tendered their resignation, the question

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

of accepting their resignations by the Committee will not arise and as

such, the Deputy Registrar has taken decision. Learned counsel has

relied on the judgment of this Court in Babburi Krishna Rao vs. The

Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies(Diary),

Government of Andhra Pradesh and another2 wherein it was held as

under:

" The short question that falls for consideration is whether there is conflict between Rule 23-AAA of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 and Bye- law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-Society.

2. For the purpose of better understanding the proposition Rule 23-AAA of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules') and Bye-law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-Society are extracted hereunder.

Rule 23 AAA "Notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, any member or members of the committee including the resident may resign his seat by sending a letter of resignation by reigstered post or by tendering it in person to the Registrar and such resignation shall take affect from the date it is accepted by the Registrar."

Bye-Law 20, "Term of Office of Managing Committee:- All the members of the Managing committee shall be elected as per the provisions of the A.P Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rules thereunder for a period of 3 years. Any casual vacancy occurs during its term of office of the managing committee shall be filed by co-operation and such co-opted member shall hold office for the remaining period of office of the member in whose place he is co-opted. The General Body have got a power to remove any member of the managing committee and elect another member in his place and such elected member shall hold office for the remaining period of the member in whose place he is elected. The actions of the managing Committee shall not be invalid merely because the casual vacancy or vacancies that arose are not filed-up.

Any elected member of the managing committee can resign his post at any time. The resignation shall come into effect from the date of its acceptance by the Managing committee after the resignation letter is addressed to the president and sent to the Secretary."

3. The two provisions precisely indicate the forum for submitting the resignation by any member of the managing committee and on such submission of resignation, the authority indicated therein is competent to accept such resignation. It is necessary to know the Rule 23-AAA is a new provision added to the rules by G.O.Ms.No. 874 (Coop.IV) Dt 1-12-88.

1993 LF (AP) 50

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

4. The learned single Judge, while considering these two propositions, held that operation of Rule 23-AAA of the Rules is absolute and, therefore, Rule 23-AAA is the only rule governing tendering of resignation/acceptance by any member of the managing committee, including president.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, appearing for the respondents. To our mind, a plain reading of Rule 23-AAA does not call for interpreting it as to the conflicting with bye-law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-Society. The words used in Rules 23-AAA viz., "Notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, any member of members, .... "are to be construed in addition to the provision contemplated in the bye-law that any member can resign the seat by sending a letter of resignation by registered post or tendering it in person to the Registrar and such resignation shall take affect from the date it is accepted by the Registrar.

6. The learned Government Pleader has taken us through the decisions in Chandravarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata, and C. Appala Swamy v. Govt of A.P., 1983 (2) An.W.R. 225 and contended that where there is inconsistency between a provision made under the Act and the Rules, the by-law must give way to the rule. Sri Peadabadu, learned counsel for the appellant, on the contrary, takes us through the decision of this Court in Parasuramaiah v. Lakshmamma, 1965 (1) An.W.R. 253 and contends that the two forums contemplated under Rule 23-AAA of the Rules and bye-law No. 20 cannot be interpreted as to be conflicting with each other. He also contends that there is no repugnancy between these two provisions and the interpretation as arrived at by the learned single Judge is not warranted when the plain reading of the words indicated no conflict between the two provisions.

7. We are in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that there is no conflict between Rule 23- AAA of the Rules and bye-law No. 20 of the 2nd respondent-society and these two can survive independently. The decisions cited by the learned Government Pleader have no relevance to the facts of the case on hand. The ratio laid down in those decisions is on a different proposition and, therefore, they cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. As we have held that there is no conflict in the two provisions, the finding of the learned single judge cannot sustain.

8. Accordingly, we set aside the order dt. 30-10-92 in Writ Petition No. 12557/92. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

He submits that there is no illegality in the said order passed by the

Deputy Registrar.

4. Respondent No.3-Deputy Registrar has filed a counter-affidavit

and reiterating the counter averments, learned Government Pleader for

Cooperation submits that respondent No.3 being the statutory authority

vested with certain powers and submits that respondent Nos.5 to 10

have approached respondent No.3 personally with the copies of their

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

resignation letters and requested him to accept their resignations.

They have informed him that they have approached petitioner No.1 for

tendering their resignations, but he was not available in the office

purposefully to avoid them and they have every reason to believe that

he will not receive their resignation letters and therefore, they have

requested respondent No.3 being the Deputy Registrar of the Societies

to accept their resignations and take further action in the interest of the

society and as such, respondent No.3 has instructed respondent No.4

to conduct inspection and submit a report and thereupon, respondent

No.4 has conducted enquiry wherein the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to

10 have attended and they have asserted and confirmed that they have

voluntarily tendered their resignations on their own will and volition as

the members of the managing committee of the society and thereafter,

report was submitted to respondent No.3 clearly stating that all the six

members of the managing committee have attended for enquiry on

06-09-2022 and stated that they have tendered their resignations

voluntarily without any pressure and their credentials are found correct.

In view of the same, as per Rule 23-AAA of the Rules, further action

may be initiated and as such respondent No.4 has requested

respondent No.3 to initiate proceedings as per Rule 23-AAA of the

Rules. He submits that when the majority of the members of the

committee have already tendered their resignations voluntarily, as per

Rule 23-AAA there was no question of acceptance of resignations by

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

the committee because there cannot be any chance for conducting the

meeting and there are no majority members. He submits that a peculiar

situation arose in this particular society that majority of the members

were not willing to continue as members of the managing committee

and therefore, there is no existence of valid managing committee in the

eye of law and under these compelling circumstances, respondent

No.3 has invoked his jurisdiction and took a justifiable decision in the

interest of the members of the society and its affairs. Accordingly,

respondent No.3 has invoked the powers vested in him under

Rule 23-AAA of sub-rule 5 of the Rules and the resignations submitted

by the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 10 are deemed to be accepted.

Further, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned orders appointing

respondent No.4 as person-in-charge for the purpose of conducting

elections for the managing committee in view of the fact that there is no

existing managing committee for the society. He submits that the

grievance of the unofficial respondents is that petitioner No.1, who is

the President of the Society, is not going to accept their resignations

and petitioner No.1 has involved into various illegalities in transferring

plots to his near and dear, which may impact a bad remark on the

existing managing committee of the society and therefore, they have

resigned and kept themselves away from the affairs of the society and

hence, having no other option, respondent No.3 has issued the

impugned proceedings. He submits that the order impugned is passed

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

by exercising the powers vested with respondent No.3 under Rule

23-AAA of Sub-rule 5 of the Rules and hence, there is no illegality in

the said order. Learned Government Pleader has relied on the orders

passed by this Court in Iragam Reddy Thirupal Reddy and others

vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others3 wherein this Court held as

under;

"51. As per Rule 23 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act, the quorum fixed for a meeting of the Managing Committee is the majority of the total Members of the Committee.

52. In this case, since the strength of the Managing Committee is thirteen, the quorum would be seven.

53. Since seven Members of the Managing Committee had resigned, the remaining six Members of the Managing Committee would not constitute a quorum.

54. A Division Bench of this Court in S.Seetha Ramaiah Naidu v. Ongole Co- operative Bank Ltd held that there cannot be a valid meeting of a Managing Committee if there is no quorum and that in such a case, there is no meeting. It held that the word quorum denotes the number of persons whose presence is required in order that business may be transacted validly by a body and to render its acts valid, and that quorum is thus a foundation for the validity of a meeting.

55. So it is impossible for the Society to transact any business without a quorum including the business of accepting the resignations of the majority. The Law does not compel the performance of an impossible obligation.

56. Possibly, keeping in mind this scenario, Rule 23-AAA of the Act has been introduced on the statute book by G.O.Ms.No.37 Agriculture and Co- operation (COOP.IV) dt.28.01.2002. It states : 23-AAA :

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the society, the President may resign his seat by sending a letter of resignation by Registered Post or by tendering it in person to the Registrar and such resignation shall take effect from the date it is accepted by the Registrar.

(2) The powers and functions of the President shall devolve on Vice- President till election to the post of the President is held as per bye-laws.

2016(5) ALD 32S

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, any member or members of the committee may resign their seats by sending a letter of resignation by Registered Post or by tendering it in person to the Chief Executive Officer/President of the society and such resignation shall take effect from the date it is accepted by the Managing Committee.

(4) In the event of absence of the President for more than a period of three months or death of President of a society, the powers and functions of the President shall devolve on the Vice-President till election to the post of the President is held as per bye-laws. (5) In the event of resignation of the entire Managing Committee or a majority of the Managing Committee, the Registrar of Co- operative Societies shall hold elections and till the new Managing Committee takes charge the Registrar may appoint person in-charge or direct the Managing Committee to continue to discharge their functions till the elections are held and the new Managing Committee takes charge.

57. A reading of Clause (1) of Rule 23-AAA of the above Rule indicates that if the President of a Society alone resigns, there is a necessity for it to be accepted by the Registrar. Such acceptance of resignation is also required under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 23-AAA if a minority of members of the Managing Committee resign.

58. But in the event of resignation of the entire Managing Committee or majority of the Managing Committee, in a situation where there is no dispute about the factum of resignation, since there is an impossibility to convene any meeting of the Managing Committee for accepting the resignations on account of lack of quorum [quorum being the majority of the Managing Committee as prescribed by Rule 23(2)], the rule-making authority rightly thought it fit to dispense with the requirement of acceptance of resignations by the Managing Committee in clause (5) of Rule 23-AAA. Under this clause, subject to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies being satisfied about the genuineness of the resignations of the majority of the Managing Committee or the entire Managing Committee, the Registrar is directed to hold elections and to appoint a person in- charge till a new Managing Committee takes charge or direct the existing Managing Committee to continue to discharge their functions till the elections are held and the new Managing Committee takes charge. So clause (3) of Rule 23 AAA would not apply if the entire Managing Committee or majority members of a Managing Committee resign.

59. In the present case, since admittedly the majority of the Managing Committee Members, i.e., seven out of thirteen resigned, and the 3rd respondent was satisfied that the resignations were genuine, after respondent nos.8 to 14 visited his Office and informed him about the voluntariness of their resignations, the 3rd respondent was correct in coming to the conclusion that there is no Managing Committee and invoke Section 32(7)(a)(i) and appoint a person in- charge.

61. No doubt, the decision in Pamarthy Veeraswamy (1 supra) laid down that there is a distinction between existence of a Committee but without quorum and a situation where there is no Committee at all, and laid down that if there is a Committee, but it is not functioning, Section 32 (7) would have no application.

62. But once Clause (5) of Rule 23-AAA is introduced on the statute book by the rule making authority, and it provides that in the event of resignation of majority of the Managing Committee, notwithstanding the existence of a Managing Committee (in minority), the Registrar is empowered to appoint a person in-charge, the said decision cannot apply. In effect, by operation of

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

Rule 23AAA(5), the Managing Committee, even if existing in a minority, is deemed to be non-existent, paving the way for appointment of a person in charge. So the said decision cannot come to the rescue of petitioners.

63. In V. Pedda Venkateswarlu (2 supra) no doubt it was held that the resignation submitted by a Member of a Managing Committee would become effective only by acceptance by the Managing Committee.

64. But this principle also cannot apply after the introduction of Clause (5) of Rule 23-AAA since it does not talk of acceptance of a resignation at all by the Managing Committee in a situation where the entire Managing Committee or majority of the Members of the Managing Committee resign. Therefore, the said decision also cannot come to the rescue of petitioners.

65. The contention of petitioners that the Chief Executive Officer of the 4th respondent-Society should have attempted to convene a meeting of the Managing Committee and if such attempt did not fructify on account of lack of quorum, he should send the report to the Registrar about the situation and then only the Registrar can take further action, is untenable because such a procedure is not contemplated under the Act or the Rules made thereunder.

66. An interpretation imposing any such obligation on the Chief Executive Officer of the Society would practically result in re-writing the provisions of the statute and the Rules made thereunder, which is impermissible, since it violates the doctrine of separation of powers which is the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

67. It is true that in Sanjay Nagayach (3 supra), the Supreme Court observed that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies should act independently without external pressure or influence or under the dictation. The said principle cannot be applied to the present case because there is no evidence of any such pressure being brought to bear on 3rd respondent except a bald plea to that effect in the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition.

68. In Awari Devanna (5 supra), this Court has held that a Managing Committee is elected for a specific term and got a vested right to hold office for the said tenure and that tenure can be terminated prematurely only on the grounds stated under the statute. It observed that principles of natural justice should be followed in such a situation where an attempt is made to terminate prematurely the term of the Managing Committee of a Society.

69. The said principle is not attracted in the present case since the term of the Managing Committee of 4th respondent-Society is terminated not under Section 34, but on account of resignation of majority of Members of the Managing Committee, a situation covered by sub-Clause (5) of Rule 23- AAA of the Act. Therefore, even the said decision does not apply.

70. Therefore, Points (b) and (c) are answered in favour of respondent nos.1 to 3 and 8 to 14 that the 3rd respondent was entitled to come to a conclusion that on the resignation of respondent Nos.8 to 14 from the Managing Committee of 4th respondent-Society, there is no Managing Committee to approve the resignations of respondent nos.8 to 14, and that it is a fit case to appoint a person in-charge to manage the affairs of 4th respondent-Society by invoking Rule 23-AAA (5) and Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Act.

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

5. Heard learned senior counsels on record and perused the entire

material on record. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has

relied upon Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Act, which reads as under;

"If there is no committee or in the opinion of the Government or, the Registrar, it is not possible to call a general meeting for the purpose of conducting election of members of the committee, the Government, in respect of such class of societies as may be prescribed and the Registrar in all other cases may appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding (one year) and the Government may, on their own and the Registrar with the previous approval of the Government, extend, from time to time, such period beyond six months, so however that the aggregate period include the extended period if any, shall not exceed (three years)".

He has also relied on Rule 23-AAAA (5) of the Rules, 1964, which

reads as under;

" 23 AAA:- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, the President may resign his seat by sending a letter of resignation by registered post or by tendering it in person to the Registrar and such resignation shall take effect from the date it is accepted by the Registrar

(2) The powers and functions of the President shall devolve on vice- president till election to the post of President is held as per bye-laws.

(3) Nothwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, any member or members of the committee may resign their seats by sending a letter of resignation by registered post or by tendering it in person to the chief Executive Officer, President of the society and such resignation shall take effect from the date it is accepted by the Managing Committee.

(4) In the event of absence of the President for more than a period of three months or death or President of a society, the powers and functions of the President shall devolve on the vice-president till election to the post of the President is held as per bye-laws.

(5) In the event of resignation of the entire Managing Committee or a majority of the Managing Committee, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies shall hold elections and till the new Managing Committee takes charge the Registrar may appoint Person Incharge or direct the Managing Committee to continue to discharge their functions till the elections are held and the new Managing Committee takes charge."

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

6. The learned Judge of this Court in Irgam Reddy Thirupal

Reddy's case (supra), on which the learned Government Pleader for

Cooperation has placed reliance, has categorically dealt with the

identical situation wherein it is observed that it is impossible for the

Society to transact any business without a quorum including the

business of accepting the resignations of the majority. It is also

observed that the law does not compel the performance of an

impossible obligation. It is also observed that the majority of the

managing committee members i.e., seven out of thirteen resigned, and

respondent No.3 therein was satisfied that the resignations were

genuine, after respondent Nos.8 to 14 visited his office and informed

him about the voluntariness of their resignations, respondent No.3

therein was correct in coming to the conclusion that there is no

Managing Committee and invoke Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Act and

appointing a person in-charge. In this case also, even according to the

affidavit filed by the petitioner, the unofficial respondents have sent

their resignations by registered post and when the majority members

do not want to continue as members and in view of the particular fact

that petitioner No.1 was reluctant to receive the resignations, they

referred the same to the Deputy Registrar. Even if it is given to the

President, he is not the competent person to accept the resignations

and it has to be placed before the Managing Committee. It is

discussed in the preceding paragraphs that when majority members

LK, J W.P.No.35567 of 2022

have tendered resignation, there is no question of accepting those

resignations by the Managing Committee. In this case, respondent

No.4 has caused an enquiry into whether such resignations submitted

by the unofficial respondents are genuine or not and having considered

it, the said report is placed stating that unofficial respondents have

appeared before him and he has come to a just conclusion that as

there is no managing committee and a person in-charge has to be

appointed. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order

impugned does not suffer from any irregularity warranting interference

by this Court.