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,
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
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,
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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)
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
