A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners who are all members of the Fishermen Co-operative Society, Sanga Reddy filed this writ petition questioning the orders dt. 16-4-2001 passed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries. Medak District in expelling them from their membership of Primary Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited, Sanga Reddy as confirmed by the Commissioner of Fisheries, Hyderabad in his proceedings No. 13229/ 121/2001, dt. 29-9-2001. ( 2 ) THE facts which are not in dispute are as under : The petitioners are all fishermen by profession and caste the members of fishermen Co-operative Society-fourth respondent. The petitioners and others formed as Fisherman Co-operative Society in the year 1959 which was registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act" ). 49 members of the fourth respondent-society made a representation to the third respondent for deletion of certain members from the rolls of the society stating that some of the members of the society are Government employees and get disqualified under Bye-law 4 (b ). In response to the representation made by the members of the fourth respondent, the third respondent directed the Fisheries Development Officer, Sanga Reddy to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report. Pursuant to the same, the fisheries Development Officer, Sanga Reddy after making enquires, submitted a report along with General Body resolution passed by the fourth respondent Society, Dt. 5-11-2000. On verification of the report and also the resolution passed by the society, the third respondent Issued notice to 60 members calling upon them to submit their explanation as to why they should not be disqualified of their membership under Ss. 20 and 21 of the Act. In response to the show cause notice, 38 members submitted their replies. Being not satisfied with the explanations offered by 38 members, the third respondent passed Impugned orders dt. 16-4-2001. expelling 60 members from their membership of the fourth respondent-society. Aggrieved by the same, they filed an appeal before the second respondent-Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Hyderabad. The second respondent stayed the operation of the impugned order, dt. 16-4-2001. Against granting of stay, the President of the fourth respondent-society preferred an appeal before the first respondent who in turn allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the second respondent with a direction to examine the case in detail keeping in view the Bye-law 4 (b) and pass appropriate orders. 16-4-2001. Against granting of stay, the President of the fourth respondent-society preferred an appeal before the first respondent who in turn allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the second respondent with a direction to examine the case in detail keeping in view the Bye-law 4 (b) and pass appropriate orders. After remand, the second respondent by his order, dt. 4-9-2001 confirmed the admission of 49 members who are enrolled as members prior to the amendment of bye-law No. 4 (a)and (b ). and they cannot be removed from the primary membership of the fourth respondent-society and 11 members are not eligible to be members of the society as they are having Government employment and admitted as members after the amendment of Bye-law 4 (b), and with regard to 13 members, directed the assistant Director of Fisheries to verify the records whether 13 members are admitted as members in accordance with bye-law 4 (a| and (b) and if their admission is not in accordance with the said bye law, take necessary action to remove them from the rolls of the membership of the fourth respondent-society. Aggrieved by the said orders, the fourth-respondent filed a revision before the first respondent. The first respondent after hearing the parties concerned through the impugned orders, dt. 29-9-2001 allowed the revision upholding the orders passed by the third respondent, dt. 16-4-2001 in removing 60 members from the rolls of the fourth respondent-society and with regard to 13 members, the third respondent was directed to go into the details of admission of 13 members as per the orders passed by the second respondent and take further action. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that as on the date when the petitioners were admitted as members there is no bar for their admission as members and subsequent employment will not disqualify them to be continued as members. The Impugned order passed by the third respondent disqualifying the petitioners from the membership under bye-law 4 (a) and (b) is said to be illegal as the said bye-law is not retrospective in operation. Section 21-A of the Act makes a person ineligible to become a member of the committee but not a members of the society. Though the request for adjournment was made by the fourth respondent before the first respondent on 29-9-2001. the Commissioner without granting time, passed the Impugned orders, dt. Section 21-A of the Act makes a person ineligible to become a member of the committee but not a members of the society. Though the request for adjournment was made by the fourth respondent before the first respondent on 29-9-2001. the Commissioner without granting time, passed the Impugned orders, dt. 29-9-2001, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, dt. 29-9-2001 is in violation of principles of Natural Justice. ( 3 ) THE third respondent filed a counter -affidavit stating that the order passed by the third respondent is in tune with the orders passed by this Court in a batch of Writ petition No. 15537/1997, dt. 13-12-2000 as confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 77/2000, dt. 22-2-2001. Once the petitioners admitted that they are gainfully employed in various Departments they are not eligible to continue as members of the fourth-respondent society as the said society is meant for genuine fishermen who are eking out their livelihood by pursuing the fishing profession. Before passing the impugned order, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners. The petitioners have no vested right to continue as members of the fourth respondent society without they being solely depending upon the fishing profession. The order passed by the third respondent as confirmed by the first respondent does not suffer from any illegality. ( 4 ) THE fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit on the same lines to that of counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioners contends that the petitioners who were all eligible to become members as on the date when they are admitted into society prior to amendment of bye-law 4 (a) and (b) cannot be disqualified on the ground that they secured employment subsequently. Sections 19 and 21 contemplate disqualification at the time of admission as a member of society but not thereafter. She further contends that amendment of bye-law 4{a) and (b) will not have any retrospective effect as held by the Apex Court in CIT v. Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Factory Limited (1988) 3 SCC 553 : ( AIR 1988 SC 1263 ). In view of the same, petitioners who were admitted prior to amendment of bye-law cannot be disqualified. She further contends that amendment of bye-law 4{a) and (b) will not have any retrospective effect as held by the Apex Court in CIT v. Bazpur Co-op. Sugar Factory Limited (1988) 3 SCC 553 : ( AIR 1988 SC 1263 ). In view of the same, petitioners who were admitted prior to amendment of bye-law cannot be disqualified. She also contends that the third respondent has not given sufficient opportunity to all the members, in fact 38 members have submitted their explanations and the remaining members were not served with show cause notice, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set a side. ( 6 ) SRI N. Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in his usual eloquence contends that fishermen co-operative societies are functional societies which are intended to generate employment, so that members of the fishermen societies eke out their livelihood out of fishing operations. He further contends that the petitioners admitted themselves that they are gainfully employed, they cannot continue as members of the fourth respondent-society. Section 19 of the Act prescribes eligibility of a person who belongs to a class of persons. Section 21 envisages disqualification of a person to be admitted as a member if he is not eligible for membership under S. 19, Rule 20 of the A. P. Cooperative Societies rules. 1964 (for short "the Rules") specifies the procedure to be followed for removal of a person who admitted as member of the society and become disqualified under S, 21. Once the General Body of the fourth respondent-society passed a resolution resolving that the persons who are gainfully employed are not eligible to continue as members of the society, the third respondent, who is a competent authority to pass orders, rightly passed the impugned order, dt. 16-4-2001 keeping in view the resolution passed by the fourth respondent. Though three authorities have concurrently held that the petitioners are gainfully employed, It cannot be said that the Impugned orders passed by the respondents are illegal. He lastly contends that the if the persons who are gainfully employed are allowed to continue as members of the society, genuine fishermen will be deprived of their livelihood whose main avocation is fishing. ( 7 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for Fisheries contends that before passing the impugned order, the authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act. He lastly contends that the if the persons who are gainfully employed are allowed to continue as members of the society, genuine fishermen will be deprived of their livelihood whose main avocation is fishing. ( 7 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for Fisheries contends that before passing the impugned order, the authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act. He further contends that as the petitioners are not eking out their livelihood solely depending on the fishing operations and the fishermen societies are meant only to generate employment to genuine fishermen, they cannot be continued to be the members of the fourth respondent-society, ( 8 ) IN view of the above rival contentions, the only point that emerges for consideration is whether the order passed by the third respondent, dt. 16-4-2001 as confirmed by the first respondent by his order, dt. 29-9-2001 is sustainable or not? ( 9 ) BEFORE adverting to the said point. It is advantageous to take note of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. section. . 19 Eligibility for membership : - (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 21.- (a) an individual who attained majority and is of sound mind and who belongs to a class of persons, if any, for whom the society is formed as per its bye-laws and who possesses such qualifications as may be specified in the bye-laws or as may be prescribed for the concerned class of societies in the interest of co-operative Movement. (b) and (c) x x x x. Sec 21. Disqualification for membership :- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being admitted as, and for being, a member if he - (a) x x x x x, (aa) is not eligible for membership under Section 19. (c) to (e) xxx. Rule 20, Removal of a member of a society who is disqualified :- (1) If any person, who is admitted as a member of a society becomes disqualified under Sec. 21 to continue as such, the Registrar may, on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society of its financing bank by an order in writing declare that he shall cease to be a member of the society from the date of such disqualification. (2) Before passing an order under sub-rule (1) the Registrar shall give such person an opportunity to state his objection, If any, for the proposed action and if the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given opportunity to be heard. The Registrar s decision shall be final and binding on the society and it shall not be questioned in any Court. " ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, all the petitioners herein are working as Junior Assistants, Attenders. Constables, Drivers, Senior Assistants, Typists in various Government departments. It is not in dispute that the Fishermen Co-operative Societies which are formed with the principal object to provide employment to its members, namely, the fishermen who solely dependent on fishing operations. The Government also provided some incentives to the Fishermen Co-operative Societies by , exclusively allotting some tanks within the area of operation of such societies. Section 19 (1) (a) deals with eligibility for membership subject to the provisions of Section 21. If any person who attained majority and is of sound mind and who belongs to a class of persons as per its bye-laws and who possesses such qualification as may be specified in bye-laws will become as a member of the society. Section 21 (aa) prescribes the. disqualification of membership from the society If he is not eligible for membership under Sec. ,19 or other subsequent developments mentioned therein. It is significant to note that Section 19 which contemplates the eligibility of membership who belongs to a class of persons itself means that the person who was actually dependent on the fishing operations and eking out his livelihood out of such activities. If the same is not restricted to the persons solely depending on the fishing operations, the very purpose and object of forming fishermen cooperative societies will be defeated, if all the persons irrespective of the employment got admitted into the fishermen co-operative societies, real fishermen who have no other source of Income will be deprived of their livelihood. Such is not the intention of Legislature in organizing the fishermen co-operative societies particularly where the society is a functional society. There cannot be any doubt that fishermen by profession alone can be eligible for membership in a functional society. Such is not the intention of Legislature in organizing the fishermen co-operative societies particularly where the society is a functional society. There cannot be any doubt that fishermen by profession alone can be eligible for membership in a functional society. No doubt, the petitioners at the time of their admission into the fourth respondent-society might have solely depending on fishing operations, but by subsequent change of their -avocation, namely, employment in various Government departments, they are not solely depending on the fishing operations due to nature of their employment. It is also not possible for them to operate fishing simultaneously. If the members who are gainfully employed are permitted to be continued as members, they will be entitled to all services from the society including sharing of profits etc. , apart from their income from the employment. The very purpose of organizing local fishermen and forming fishermen co-operative societies by earmarking certain tanks dispensing with public auction etc. . are to provide employment for poor fishermen who take out, their livelihood by pursuing the fishing profession. There cannot be any nominal or sleeping member in a functional society. The language of Section 21 is wide enough to embrace disqualification not only for being admitted as a member, but also for being continued as a member. In view of the same, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners who were qualified as on the date of formation of society, they cannot be disqualified, cannot be sustainable for the reason that they are gainfully employed and they are eking out their livelihood out of the said employment and are not belong to a class of persons for which societies are formed. ( 11 ) EQUALLY the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that bye-law 4 (a) and 4 (b) will not have any retrospective effect and the reliance placed by the learned Counsel, have no effect for the reason that Sec. 21 also takes in its sweep disqualification to continue as a member. When the petitioners themselves admitted that they are working in various Governments departments, they can automatically attract disqualification under Section 2 l (aa) as they do not belong a class of persons. Section 21 is wide enough to disqualify a member not only at the time of admission but also being continued as a member. When the petitioners themselves admitted that they are working in various Governments departments, they can automatically attract disqualification under Section 2 l (aa) as they do not belong a class of persons. Section 21 is wide enough to disqualify a member not only at the time of admission but also being continued as a member. I am fortified with the above, view by judgment of this Court in S. Ram Mohan Rao v. District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad. 1993 (2) APLJ 451 . which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 1404/93 dt. 20-1-1994. The General Body of the fourth respondent itself passed a resolution that all the petitioners herein who are gainfully employed are noteligible to be the members of the fourth-respondent, the third respondent who is competent authority to take action basing upon the said resolution. Issued notice to all the persons and out of 60 persons, 38 persons filed explanations and after considering the same, the third respondent passed orders expelling the petitioners from their membership of the fourth respondent. Even assuming that some of the petitioners have not submitted their explanations and they were not served with show cause notice, no such details are furnished snowing the names of the persons who were not served with show cause notices. But the fact remains that the petitioners who were disqualified filed an appeal before the second respondent and raised all contentions. The exercise of right of appeal is a matter which could be taken into account in considering the grant of discretionary relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The second respondent through his proceedings, dt. 4-9-2001 gave a categorical finding that out of 60 employees whose names are shown in the General Body resolution and appeal petition, 49 members in the Fishermen Cooperative Society. Sanga Reddy are enrolled as members prior to the amendment of Bye-Law 4 (a) and (b), they cannot be removed and 11 persons who were admitted after amendment of Bye-law are not eligible to be the members of the society as they are having the Government employment and admitted as members after the amendment of bye-law. But the reasoning given by the second respondent that the admission of members prior to amendment of bye-law cannot be disqualified as patently erroneous in view of Sections 19 and 21 of the Act. But the reasoning given by the second respondent that the admission of members prior to amendment of bye-law cannot be disqualified as patently erroneous in view of Sections 19 and 21 of the Act. The first respondent rightly interpreted the said sections and after providing the sufficient opportunity to the fourth respondent and the petitioners held that the petitioners who are all gainfully employed are not entitled to be continued as members. In view of the same, the complaint that the first respondent has not given sufficient opportunity before passing the impugned order cannot be sustain-able. I do not see any error apparent on the face of record in expelling the petitioners from the membership of the fourth respondent-society. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.