Judgment : This Writ Petition was filed to declare the proceedings No.85/C/05, dated 10.03.2007 of the first respondent deleting the Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the petitioner by amendment to bye-law No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and irregular. The petitioner which is a society formed in the year 1973 with 25 members with an area of operation of Chinnarompivalasa, Mulapaka, Pedaraopalli, Subhadrapuram and Bejjupuram and 10 other minor villages with an extent of 66.08 hectares in the area of Devulavani cheruvu. But it is stated that the actual water spread area is only 40 hectares. The entire 40 hectares is situated in Bejjupuram village. The other tanks in other villages normally do not contain any water and there is no possibility of growth of fish in the small tanks situated in other villages. So the only source of living for the 20 families of the society is from the tank of Devulavani cheruvu. The said tank is a Government tank. While so, some villagers of Bejjupuram submitted a representation on 09.05.2005 to the 1st respondent seeking permission to start a new Inland Fishermen Cooperative Society at Bejjupuram and for allotting Devulavani cheruvu as the area of operation by deleting it from the petitioner society. There upon the 1st respondent directed the Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam for sending a feasibility report on their application and the Fisheries Development Officer without serving any notice on society submitted a report in letter No.57/06 dated 18.08.2006 stating that the petitioner society did not respond to the notices expressing one way or the other for formation of another Fishermen Cooperative Society at Bejjupuram. Therefore, he reported that there was no objection to the formation of such society. Since, no notice was issued to the petitioner society, they could not respond to it and hence objection to the formation of the society does not arise. Based on the report, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the society on 21.09.2006 calling upon them to amend their bye-law No.1 by deleting Bejjupuram village from the area of operation. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner called for a general body meeting of the society on 25.09.2006. In the said general body meeting, the members of the society unanimously resolved to reject the proposal. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner called for a general body meeting of the society on 25.09.2006. In the said general body meeting, the members of the society unanimously resolved to reject the proposal. The petitioner society also produced the copies of the final audit report pertaining to the year 2005-06 showing the actual income and loss from the tanks and the affect due to deletion of Bejjupuram area. The 1st respondent without considering the resolution and the representations, by proceedings No.85/C/2005 dated 10.03.2007 annulled the resolution dated 25.09.2006 of the petitioner society and amended bye-law No.1 of the society in exercise of powers under Section 16(5) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. As a result, the petitioner society is having 14 villages and Bejjupuram village is deleted from the area of operation. The 1st respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner society was registered on 21.09.1979 with 20 members and at present there are only 20 members in the society, but not 25 as stated in the affidavit. It is also stated that the society was formed in 1979 but not in 1973 as stated in the affidavit of the petitioner. The water spread area is 170 hectares out of 233.96 hectares of area. Out of the said water spread area, Devulavani cheruvu of Bejjupuram village is having a departmental tank of 66.08 hectares, out of which 40 hectares is water spread area. After deleting the said tank also there remains 167.88 hectares area with 130 hectares of water spread area relating to Panchayat tanks. It is not correct to state that the other tanks will not normally contain any water and as such there is no possibility to grow fish in the said small tanks. Murapaka and China Murapaka Panchayats tanks are having water sources and they are being assessed rentals by rental fixation committee concerned for growing fishery wealth in those tanks. But they have to obtain Fishery Rights from the concerned Panchayats as per G.O.Rt.No.546 P & R (Pts. IV) Department, dated 25.03.1999. The villagers of Bejjupuram consisting of 81 persons comprising of SCs and BCs put in a representation to the Assistant Director of Fisheries on 09.05.2005 for organization of Inland Fishermen Cooperative Society in their village with Devulavani cheruvu and Gorlevani cheruvu duly deleting them from the petitioner’s society. IV) Department, dated 25.03.1999. The villagers of Bejjupuram consisting of 81 persons comprising of SCs and BCs put in a representation to the Assistant Director of Fisheries on 09.05.2005 for organization of Inland Fishermen Cooperative Society in their village with Devulavani cheruvu and Gorlevani cheruvu duly deleting them from the petitioner’s society. The proposals were referred to Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam for feasibility report and he issued a notice to the society on 01.07.2005, which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 01.07.2005 itself. Thereafter also several notices were issued by the Fisheries Development Officer and ultimately a registered notice was sent on 21.07.2005 for the above said purpose and even after acknowledgement of the same, the petitioner did not respond. After one year, the Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam, submitted a report on 18.08.2006 stating that the petitioner society did not respond to the several notices and the fishery wealth of departmental tank of Devulavani cheruvu is being enjoyed by a middle man. Though the area of operation of the society is confined to 5 villages, all members on roll belong to only one village i.e., Chinnarompivalasa. Based on the feasibility report dated 18.08.2006 of the Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam, the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Srikakulam issued notice under Sections 16 and 31-A to resolve in general body and obtain opinion of members for deletion of Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the society for organization of new society at Bejjupuram. The notice also refers to enrollment of new members of other villages. The society did not heed to the suggestion for enrollment, but in the general body meeting on 25.09.2006, attended by 15 members, the members opposed the deletion of Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the society. On verification, it is noticed that no member other than from the Chinnarompivalasa village is enjoying the benefit from the society and the new members are not being enrolled from other villages with selfish motives. Though there is sufficient water resource, the proposal has come from Harijans and Neyyala Caste (Fishermen) people of Bejjupuram village. It is further stated that the existing members in the petitioner society are not fishermen by caste. Though there is sufficient water resource, the proposal has come from Harijans and Neyyala Caste (Fishermen) people of Bejjupuram village. It is further stated that the existing members in the petitioner society are not fishermen by caste. It is noticed that the society is working detrimental to the cooperative spirit and it was felt, that an amendment to bye-law No.1 for deletion of Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the petitioner society, necessary and desirable in the interests of cooperative movement. Accordingly, action was taken for deletion of Bejjupuram village vide proceedings No.85/C/2005 dated 10.03.2007 duly annulling minutes of the general body meeting dated 25.09.2006 of the petitioner’s society. The action was in accordance with cooperative spirit and is not illegal. The society was informed on 07.10.2006 that the minutes of the meeting dated 25.09.2006 were annulled as the minutes were against the cooperative principles. After waiting for nearly 2 months the amendment under Section 16(5) of the Act was registered on 10.03.2007 and the action is reasonable. While registering the amendment, the procedure prescribed under Rules 10 & 11 of the Rules made under the Act was also followed. After registering the amendment on 10.03.2007 proposals for registration of Inland Fishermen Cooperative Society at Bejjupuram were submitted to the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Srikakulam for onward submission of the Commissioner of Fisheries, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad seeking permission for registration. After obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Fisheries vide Rc.No.3642/I2/2007, dated 26.05.2007 the new society at Bejjupuram was registered on 04.07.2007 and it started functioning from 10.07.2007 and the lease orders were also issued on 26.07.2007 to the new society by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Srikakulam. Thus, the petitioner is not holding right over Devulavani cheruvu during the year 2006-07. The 3rd respondent also filed a counter affidavit stating that the members of the society belongs to SC and Neyyala Caste and are residents of Bejjupuram village, Laveru Mandal of Srikakulam District and they are eking out their livelihood by catching fish during the season and by way of coolie work during un-season. All the members of the society are fishermen by profession with vast experience in fishing operations. The petitioner society was formed by 20 members belonging to Kapu Caste of Chinnarompivalasa village and the same was registered on 21.09.1979. All the members of the society are fishermen by profession with vast experience in fishing operations. The petitioner society was formed by 20 members belonging to Kapu Caste of Chinnarompivalasa village and the same was registered on 21.09.1979. Initially, the area of operation extended to only 6 villages and later on 9 other villages were added and as on date of filing of the counter there are 16 villages with about 32 tanks with a total water spread area of 233.96 hectares. The members belong to one village i.e., Chinnarompivalasa and have been enjoying the fish wealth for the last 28 years and they were not allowing the enrollment of members from any other village including Bejjupuram village. It is also stated that they have been making representations since 1995 for their enrollment as members to the petitioner society, but the petitioner society was not allowing. While so, on 09.05.2005 they submitted a representation to the 1st respondent for formation of new society by deleting Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the petitioner society. The other facts stated by the 3rd respondent more or less conform the facts stated by the official respondents. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure contained under Sections 15 and 16 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act have not been followed in the instant case and hence the impugned order dated 10.03.2007 passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the area of operation, extent of land available and nativity of the members of the petitioner society. The point that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the 1st respondent has followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act in general and more particularly under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act for deleting Bejjupuram village from the area of operation of the petitioner society and amending bye-law No.1 of the society and farming a new society. Chapter II of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act deals with Registration of Societies. Section 15-A deals with identification of viability of societies and consequences thereof. Chapter II of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act deals with Registration of Societies. Section 15-A deals with identification of viability of societies and consequences thereof. It provides for amalgamation or merger of any society with any other such society or division and restriction or transfer of the area of operation of the society or to liquidate a society for any of the purposes mentioned therein. But such action can be taken only “in respect of the society or societies in receipt of State aid as specified under Section 43 of the Act”. This important amendment to the provisions of the Act was made by Act No.22 of 2001 dated 25.04.2001 by omitting Section 15 and by inserting this restriction under Section 15-A. Hence, in respect of society or societies which are not receiving state aid as specified under Section 43 of the Act, the Registrar has no role for amalgamation or merger, division, restriction or transfer the area of operation of the society or to liquidate a society. The power is restricted only to the societies receiving state aid as specified under Section 43 of the Act and thus gave greater autonomy to other societies in their functioning. Thus after amending Act No.22 of 2001 dated 25.04.2001, the Registrar cannot direct any society or societies not receiving state aid to amalgamate or merge, to divide and restrict or transfer the area of operation of the society or to liquidate a society. This important restriction on the power of the Registrar has been over looked and action was taken by the Registrar as if he was having power to restrict the area of operation of the petitioner society. Section 16 of the Act deals with amendment of bye-laws of a society and its operation. Sub-Section 5 of Section 16 of the Act gives the Registrar the power to direct a society to make amendment of bye-laws when he finds that such amendment is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society or of the cooperative movement. If the society fails to make such amendment within the time specified by the Registrar, the Registrar after giving an opportunity of making its representation, can register such amendment and forward to the society by registered post a copy of the amendment together with a certificate signed by him; such a certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered. If we ignores Section 15-A for its application to the present facts of the case then we have to rely on Section 16(5) of the Act. Such power can be exercised by the Registrar only “in the interest of the society or of the cooperative movement”. The society in the instant case is having 20 members. Even as per the records of the 1st respondent, the 20 members unanimously resolved that an amendment to bye-law No.1 is not in the interest of the society and in those circumstances it cannot be hold that the amendment is in the interest of the society. However, if the interest of the cooperative movement is taken as a ground then that ground should be specified to the society and the society should be given an opportunity of making its representation. Thereafter only the Registrar gets power to effect amendment. Rule 10 of the Rules applies to a case where the society seeks amendment of the bye-laws. Rule 11 deals with amendment of the bye-laws at the instance of the Registrar. Rules 11-A and 11-B applies to the cases where the power is exercised under Section 15-A. As per the averments in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, after rejection of the proposed amendment by the Society in its general body meeting held on 25.09.2006, annulled it vide his proceedings dated 10.03.2007. It is the case of the 1st respondent that before passing the orders on 10.03.2007, the society was put on notice on 07.10.2006. A perusal of the letter Rc.No.85/C/2005 dated 10.03.2007 of the 1st respondent shows that since the resolution of the society was not in accordance with the instructions issued by him, the resolution of the general body dated 25.09.2006 was rejected by him. Then a detailed order was passed on 10.03.2007 stating that the society was working detrimental to the cooperative spirit and as per the report of the Fisheries Development Officer, Ranasthalam and on verification it was noticed that no member other than the Chinnarompivalasa village was enjoying the fishery wealth in the area of operation of the society and hence in his opinion the amendment of bye-law No.1 for deletion of Bejjupuram village was necessary and desirable in the interest of the cooperative movement. Accordingly, he annulled the minutes of the general body dated 25.09.2006. Accordingly, he annulled the minutes of the general body dated 25.09.2006. This is not what is contemplated under Section 16(5) read with Rule 11 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The general body of the society rejected the proposed amendment in its resolution dated 25.09.2006. The rejection of that resolution by the 1st respondent was communicated on 07.10.2006. Thereafter, bye-law No.1 was amended by order dated 10.03.2007. Before making such amendment he did not give the society an opportunity of making its representation as the society failed to make such amendment as contemplated under the provisions of Section 16(5), but straightaway registered the proposed amendment. There is no evidence to show that a certificate was signed by him and was sent by registered post making it as conclusive evidence of such duly registered amendment. Thus the procedural safeguards contained under Section 16(5) of the Act have not been followed. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 15-A of the Act and the same has no application as the Registrar was denuded of the power to interfere with amalgamation, merger, division, transfer of the area of operation of the society or liquidation of the society except in respect of the societies specified under Section 43 of the Act. The other power which is available is only under Section 16(5) of the Act. The procedural safeguards contained in the Act have not been followed as held above. On this ground, the impugned order is unsustainable but there was no interim order granted at the time of admission of the writ petition on 06.12.2007 and the new society has been functioning from 04.07.2007. A lease was also granted to the new society during the year 2006-07 and it can be assumed that in the subsequent years also leases were granted in favour of the new society. The members of new society belong to Bejjupuram village where as the members of the petitioner society belong to Chinnarompivalasa village. Both the societies must have accepted the situation despite the procedural violations made by the 1st respondent. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not desirable to allow the writ petition. The law is declared with regard to the power of the Registrar for division, restriction or transfer of the area of operation of the society in respect of societies not receiving state aid. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not desirable to allow the writ petition. The law is declared with regard to the power of the Registrar for division, restriction or transfer of the area of operation of the society in respect of societies not receiving state aid. It is not available to the Registrar and the power that is available is only under Section 16(5) of the Act subject to the procedure safeguards contained therein and Rule 11 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.