JUDGMENT This Writ Petition was filed challenging the show cause notice of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, issued vide letter No.12/A2/2008, dated 08.10.2009. 2. The petitioner’s society was registered with registration No.11-B, Kalipatnam (East) under the provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). It was formed with 16 members including the members of the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee consists of 5 members and they are President, Secretary and three Directors. The 16 members are doing fishing with gill net, basket tramps and by erection of garikattus into drains and gurlachader natural drain. The society was formed on the recommendation of the Fisheries Development Officer, Mogalturu. The Assistant Director of Fisheries issued license to the society as per the rules and regulations framed in G.O.Ms.No.50, Agriculture, dated 18.01.1963 and as amended vide Government Memo No.324/Fish/70-3 dated 07.12.1970. While so, the Assistant Director of Fisheries issued proceedings No.12/A2/2008, dated 10.08.2009 removing all the 16 members from the primary membership of the society. Challenging the same, some members of the society filed W.P.No.18159 of 2009 and the same was disposed of on 07.09.2009 directing the 2nd respondent, Assistant Director of Fisheries to give an opportunity to the Writ Petitioners by putting them on notice, receive the objections, if any, afford an opportunity of hearing and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. After receipt of the said directions, the Assistant Director of Fisheries issued a show cause notice No.12/A2/2008, dated 08.10.2009 for removal of the members from the primary membership of the society on the ground that the members were not having necessary equipment for fishing operations and they have no knowledge about the fishing activity. It was also stated therein that there is no consent of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat for registration of the society and other grounds. The said order of the Assistant Director is challenged in the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit was filed admitting the fact of the registration of the society on 18.06.2008 with 16 members as per the permission issued by the Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyderabad vide proceeding No.1309/I1/2008, dated 01.05.2008 basing on the proposals submitted by the then Fisheries Development Officer, Mogalturu. 3. A counter affidavit was filed admitting the fact of the registration of the society on 18.06.2008 with 16 members as per the permission issued by the Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyderabad vide proceeding No.1309/I1/2008, dated 01.05.2008 basing on the proposals submitted by the then Fisheries Development Officer, Mogalturu. But the local M.L.A. of Narsapuram and resident fishermen of Kalipatnam raised objection in awareness meeting held on 18.06.2009 stating that the members of the society did not belong to fishermen community and they are not in the fishing profession and the society was bogus. It was also stated that Sri Srirama Murthy and others of Kalipatnam (East) submitted a representation to dissolve the society as the members were unskilled in fishing and they belong to Kapu community and S.C. community. On the said allegations, the Fisheries Development Officer, Mogalturu was instructed to enquire into the matter. He submitted a report stating that the members did not attend the enquiry on 25.06.2009 except two S.C. members of the society and they stated that they were not aware of the membership of the society. In the said report, it was also stated that the members did not have Navas and nets which were mentioned in the proposals submitted for registration of the society and the society was meant for sea going fishermen and the act of laying of garikattus etc., in drains is an activity of inland fishermen but not marine fishermen. The garikattus permitted to the society by the department were leased out to others violating the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.50, Agriculture, dated 08.01.1963. Thus, the Fisheries Development Officer, Mogalturu reported that all the members of the society were unskilled in fishing and they are not sea going fishermen. The counter further states that the required norms were not fulfilled for registration of Marine Fishermen Cooperative Society. In view of the non-fulfilment of the norms and in view of the objections raised on the members of the society, a show cause notice was issued to all the members of the society and the action was valid. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 5. In view of the non-fulfilment of the norms and in view of the objections raised on the members of the society, a show cause notice was issued to all the members of the society and the action was valid. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 5. The only point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is with regard to jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, Assistant Director of Fisheries, Bhimavaram, who issued the show cause notice for disqualifying them as members of the society under Section 21 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of her contention drew the attention of this Court to order in W.P.No.18740 of 2003 dated 13.12.2007 wherein the jurisdiction of the Assistant Director to disqualify the members of the society in exercise of powers conferred under Section 21(3) of the Act was considered and held that it is the general body which alone is competent to remove ineligible or disqualified members from the rolls of the society. and negatived the contention of the respondents that Rule 20 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 empowers the Assistant Director of Fisheries to remove the members of the society. 6. Section 21(3) of the Act was inserted by A.P. Act No.28 of 1998, with effect from 09.05.1988, and reads as follows: “21. Disqualification for membership of society:- (1) …………… (2) …………………. (3) Where any person, who is not eligible for being admitted as member has been admitted as member or where a member who is disqualified to continue as such under sub-section (1) is continued as member, he shall be removed,-- (i) by the Registrar on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of a society or its federal society or its financing bank; or (ii) by the Committee of the society: Provided that no member shall be removed under this sub-section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action and where the removal is sought to be made by the Committee, until the resolution of the Committee is approved by the Registrar. The order of the Registrar, or as the case may be, a copy of the resolution removing the member as approved by the Registrar, shall be communicated to such person and on such communication, he shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the society.” Thereafter, the Government constituted a committee for Cooperative Law Reforms headed by Sri Abdul Karim Khan, who submitted his report to the Government with recommendations in July 1999 after consultations with all the concerned people. The Government constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee to examine the said recommendations. On the basis of the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee the Government decided to amend the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and accordingly the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (Second Amendment) Act, 2001 [Act No.22 of 2001] was passed making certain amendments to the provisions of the Act including the amendments to Section 21. Sub-Section 3 of Section 21 of the Act was substituted as follows: “(3) Where any person, who is not eligible for being admitted as member has been admitted as member or where the member who is disqualified to continue as such under sub-section (1) is continued as member, he shall be removed by the General body on its own motion or on a representation made to it by any member of a society or its federal society or its financing bank: Provided that no member shall be removed under this sub-section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action. A copy of the resolution removing the member shall be communicated to such person and on such communication, he shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the society.” 7. Thus, the amended Sub-Section 3 removes the power of the Registrar and that of the Committee of the society and the entire power was vested with the general body of the society. But, unfortunately no suitable amendment was made to Rule 20 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 as a result, it continued to be in the statue book without any sanction of the provisions of the Act. Rule 20 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 reads as follows: “20. But, unfortunately no suitable amendment was made to Rule 20 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 as a result, it continued to be in the statue book without any sanction of the provisions of the Act. Rule 20 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 reads as follows: “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 Section 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 or 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.” 8. A reading of the said Rule makes it clear that it is nothing but a replica of un-amended Section 21(3) of the Act which became redundant after the amendment by substituting sub-section (3). It is well known that a Rule cannot travel beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act nor can it be contrary to the provisions of the Act. 9. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent in the instant case is clearly without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 10. One more fact noticed in the instant case is that the 2nd respondent has formed an opinion that all the members of the society are ineligible to be continued as members of the society which results in winding up of the society. The winding up of the society is dealt with by Section 64 of the Act and it presupposes an enquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under Section 52 or in the circumstances mentioned in Sub-Section 2 thereof. No such course of action was followed by the 2nd respondent. The winding up of the society is dealt with by Section 64 of the Act and it presupposes an enquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under Section 52 or in the circumstances mentioned in Sub-Section 2 thereof. No such course of action was followed by the 2nd respondent. Consequently, the impugned show cause notice is set aside, but this does not prevent the respondents from taking action under the provisions of the Act against the society or its members in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.