Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 231 (AP)

Mykala Hanumaiah v. Government Of A. P.

2004-02-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2004
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the members of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Chamanapalli village, Karimanagar District. The society had 27 members on its rolls. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS were served with notice dated 12-12-2000, wherein it was indicated that a meeting of the General Body will be held on 21-12-2000, to consider the resolution to expel the petitioners herein from membership. A resolution is said to have been passed on that day, expelling the petitioners from membership. ( 3 ) UNDER the relevant provisions of A. P. Cooperative Societies Act (herein after called as act ) and the rules made there under, the resolution would become operative only on being approved by the 3rd respondent-Assistant Director of fisheries, Karimnagar. ( 4 ) SINCE the 3rd respondent did not accorded his approval, 5th respondent submitted, a representation to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Fisheries, alleging that the 2nd respondent has not taken any action on the representation. ( 5 ) SINCE the 2nd respondent has not taken any action on the represenation, the 5th respondent filed W. P. No. 4615 of 2001 before this court and the Writ Petition was disposed of on 31-03-2001 directing the 2nd respondent to consider the matter and pass orders within the time stipulated therein. It was in this context, that the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 02-06-2001 disposing of the representation. He took a view that the resolution was not passed through a requisite majority and as such it cannot be acted upon. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by this order, 5th respondent preferred a review before the 2nd respondent himself. On this application, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 08-01-2001 and took the view that the resolution dated 20-12-2000 passed by the society is valid and directed the 3rd respondent to take consequential steps. The petitioners challenge the said order. ( 7 ) THE petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent has entertained the review contrary to the provisions of law and has not recorded any reasons to take a view different from the one taken by him in the order dated 02-06-2001. Counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the other. Counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the other. ( 8 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for fisheries and learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. ( 9 ) THE petitioners are the members of the 4th respondent-society. They were expelled by the society through resolution dated 20-12-2000. The 3rd respondent, who is an authority competent to accord approval for such resolutions, declined to approve the resolution. Respondent No. 4 and 5 approached the 2nd respondent with an application. On a consideration of the same, he addressed a letter dated 02-06-2001 holding that the removal of the petitioners herein from the membership was not in accordance with law since the resolution was not carried with requisite majority as required under Section 23 of the Act. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed an application of review before the 2nd respondent. ( 10 ) THE same is said to have been filed under Section 78 of the Act. On a consideration of the review application, he passed an order dated 08-01-2002 upholding the resolution and directing the 3rd respondent to take follow up action. ( 11 ) IT is true that Section 78 of the Act confers power of review upon the 2nd respondent. The Section refers to the circumstances under which the power of review can be exercised. It is also a settled principle of law that the decision rendered by an authority can be reviewed by him only when it is brought to its notice that an important aspect of the matter, either of law or fact, missed the attention of the court at the time of earlier adjudication and that the same had an important bearing on the outcome of the proceedings. The 2nd respondent has not referred to any such contentions said to have been raised by the respondent nos. 4 and 5. Even the order does not disclose that it has noticed any omission of an important aspect of law or fact in his order dated 02-06-2001. Except taking a view contrary to the one taken in his earlier order, the 2nd respondent has not chosen to give even a single reason in support of his findings. 4 and 5. Even the order does not disclose that it has noticed any omission of an important aspect of law or fact in his order dated 02-06-2001. Except taking a view contrary to the one taken in his earlier order, the 2nd respondent has not chosen to give even a single reason in support of his findings. It is a settled principle of law that review cannot be a mechanism to reverse an earlier finding or decision, nor it can be compared with an exercise in an appeal. This court does not find any basis in the order dated 08-01-2002 passed by the 2nd respondent. The same is accordingly set aside. It is, however, directed that the 2nd respondent shall consider the matter afresh, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly indicating the circumstances under which the review application is filed and furnish reasons in support of his findings that may be recorded by him. Till such order is passed, the petitioners shall continue as members of the 4th respondent-Society. This court does not find any basis in the order dated 08-01-2002 passed by the 2nd respondent. The same is accordingly set aside. It is, however, directed that the 2nd respondent shall consider the matter afresh, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly indicating the circumstances under which the review application is filed and furnish reasons in support of his findings that may be recorded by him. Till such order is passed, the petitioners shall continue as members of the 4th respondent-Society.