Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 5 (TS)

Bollineni Ravindranath v. Sate of Telangana

2021-01-05

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2021
ORDER : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. The subject matter of both these Writ Petitions is one and the same and so they are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are questioning: (i) the actions of the respondents in not preparing/publishing Voters list of the Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. (4th respondent in both the Writ Petitions) in accordance with the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder; (ii) the action of its former President Sri T. Narendra Chowdary (5th respondent in both the Writ Petitions) and the Members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the said Society (who are currently the Person-in Charge Committee of the said Society) in excluding a large number of eligible members from the Voters list prepared by them and forwarded to the Registrar - cum - Commissioner of Cooperative Societies, State of Telangana (2nd respondent in both the Writ Petitions) vide LR.RCNo.JCS/072/2020 DT. 30.07.2020; and (iii) abdication of responsibility by the Registrar-cum-Commissioner of Co-operative Societies (2nd respondent) of his exclusive duty and responsibility under Rule 22(6) of the said Rules of due verification, calling for objections and certifying of the eligible voters list after making necessary corrections by illegally delegating the said responsibility to the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad. Petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to prepare a new voters list by incorporating the names of all the members of the 4th respondent-Society including the petitioners strictly in accordance with law including Rule 22 of the said Rules by setting aside the voter list forwarded by the 5th respondent on 30.07.2020 mentioning only 256 members when there were as many as 4,980 members; and then to direct the State Co-operative Election authority (3rd respondent) to issue election notification and conduct elections to the said Society. 3. The Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. (the 4th respondent) was registered as a Co-operative Society under the provisions of the then A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 with the object to carry on for the benefit of its members the trade of building and of buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land in accordance with Co-operative principles and also to give loans to its members for construction of new dwelling houses. Its area of operation is Banjara Hills situated in the villages of Shaikpet and Hakimpet in the erstwhile District of Hyderabad. 4. Its area of operation is Banjara Hills situated in the villages of Shaikpet and Hakimpet in the erstwhile District of Hyderabad. 4. In the last 60 years the said Society has developed the area and is to-day a place where politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen, former Chief Ministers, lawyers, sitting and former Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court of India, film artistes of the Telugu Film Industry and many prominent citizens of Hyderabad reside. It is one of the most lucrative, high-priced and much sought after signature real-estate location in Hyderabad. 5. The then Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms. No. 890, Food and Agriculture Department dt. 29.03.1965 had conferred the powers on the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies to exercise the powers of the Registrar under the Act and subsequently permitted vide G.O.Ms. No. 34 Food and Agriculture Department dt. 16.01.1989 delegation by the said authority to the District Co-operative Officer and Dy. Registrar in charge of Housing Societies in the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. 6. However, keeping in mind the special position of the 4th respondent-Society and four other Societies of similar nature, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the said Act as amended by the A.P. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1985, issued G.O.Ms. No. 368 Agriculture and Co-operation (COOP. IV) Department dt. 29.12.1999 modifying the above Government Orders with immediate effect by specifically mandating that only the Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall exercise all the powers under the Act in respect of the 4th respondent-Society and the four other Societies and not permitting either the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the District Cooperative Officer to exercise powers conferred by the Act on the Registrar. 7. The last elections to the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society were held on 01.10.2015. In the said election, the 5th respondent had been elected as President of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society. 8. As per Section 31(2)(a) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), the term of the Office of the Managing Committee and its Office-bearers including the President is 5 years from the date of their election and the term of the Office bearers is co terminus with the term of the Board. 9. 8. As per Section 31(2)(a) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), the term of the Office of the Managing Committee and its Office-bearers including the President is 5 years from the date of their election and the term of the Office bearers is co terminus with the term of the Board. 9. So, the term of the 5th respondent and other Office-bearers who were part of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society ended on 01.10.2020 as per the above provision. 10. Thereafter, a person In-Charge Committee was constituted on 08.09.2020 under Section 32(7) of the Act by the State Government consisting of the Members of the erstwhile elected Managing Committee and the 5th respondent is part of the said Committee. This person In-Charge Committee currently represents the 4th respondent-Society in these Writ Petitions. 11. Rule 22(1) of the Rules framed under the Act states that the incumbent Managing Committees/Person In-Charge Committee, Official Administrator(s)/Ad-hoc Committee of the Society shall at least 60 days before the expiry of the term of the Committee/Person In-Charge Committee, etc., submit proposals to the State Co-operative Election Authority for conduct of elections to the Society. 12. The State Co-operative Election Authority of the State of Telangana is arrayed as 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition. 13. Rule 22(6)(a) directs the incumbent Managing Committee to prepare and publish the list of members eligible to vote on the notice board of the Society indicating the serial number, admission number/general number, date of admission, name of member, father's name, village/locality, age, community, sex (male/female) along with the passport size photograph of the member voter. 14. Under Rule 22(6)(b), the Managing Committee shall invite the claims or objections from members. Thereafter, it shall communicate the list of members eligible to vote to the Registrar for verification and approval as per Rule 22(6)(c). Then, the Registrar, after due verification and duly calling for the objections shall certify the eligible voters list after necessary corrections under Rule 22(6)(d). 15. Under Rule 22(6)(e), the Managing Committee would then submit eligible voters list of the Society duly approved and certified by the Registrar along with the proposals specified in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 22 to the State Co-operative Election Authority. 16. In the instant case, the 5th respondent addressed Lr.Rc. No. JCS/072/2020 dt. 15. Under Rule 22(6)(e), the Managing Committee would then submit eligible voters list of the Society duly approved and certified by the Registrar along with the proposals specified in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 22 to the State Co-operative Election Authority. 16. In the instant case, the 5th respondent addressed Lr.Rc. No. JCS/072/2020 dt. 30.07.2020 to the Registrar - cum - Commissioner of Co-operative Societies, State of Telangana (2nd respondent) stating that he is forwarding election proposals after allegedly following due process of displaying voter list calling for objections by giving 7 days' notice period; that no objections were received; and so, the approved voters list consisting of a mere 256 voters out of 4980 members is submitted to the 2nd respondent. He further stated that the situation is not conducive for conduct of General Body meeting of the Society due to COVID-19 Pandemic and also there is no such situation for smooth conduct of elections due to the said reasons; and so, the 2nd respondent should consider extending the term of the existing Managing Committee till normalcy returns. 17. The list enclosed by the 5th respondent no doubt contains the names of 256 persons but photographs of some of the said voters, which are mandatory to be included as per Rule 22(6)(a), are not found therein. 18. No reason is indicated in the said letter dt. 30.07.2020 of the 5th respondent why the rest of the members of the 4th respondent-Society amounting to 4724 members (4980 total members minus 256 eligible voters/members) are excluded from the voters list. 19. After the said letter is received by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent in turn addressed letter Rc. No. 3799/2020/HG1 dt. 03.08.2020 to the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad referring to the final list of valid voters of the 4th respondent-Society submitted to him by the 5th respondent and asking the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad to scrutinise the election proposals, verify the voters list and submit the proposals to the State Co-operative Election Authority for conduct of elections and report compliance. 20. Counsel for petitioners contend that it is the responsibility of the 2nd respondent alone as Registrar of Co-operative Societies to carry out the task of verification, calling for objections, certifying of eligible voters list and scrutinize the election proposals and he cannot delegate the said task to the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad in view of G.O.Ms. 20. Counsel for petitioners contend that it is the responsibility of the 2nd respondent alone as Registrar of Co-operative Societies to carry out the task of verification, calling for objections, certifying of eligible voters list and scrutinize the election proposals and he cannot delegate the said task to the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad in view of G.O.Ms. No. 368 Agriculture and Cooperation (COOP. IV) Department dt. 29.12.1999; and that as per Notification II appended thereto the District Co-operative Officer is in fact prohibited from exercising any powers conferred on the Registrar in respect of the 4th respondent-Society. 21. This legal position is not disputed by the Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of Additional Advocate-General, appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.V. Rudra Prasad, counsel for 4th respondent's Person In-Charge Committee and Sri P. Venu Gopal, Senior Counsel appearing for Rohit Pogula, counsel for 5th respondent. 22. When the statute/statutory rule/notification issued in exercise of powers conferred under the Act mandates a thing to be done in a particular way, it cannot be done in any other way. This principle has been laid down in several decisions of the Supreme Court. 23. I shall refer to one such decision- J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka (2014) 2 SCC 401 . The Supreme Court held: "34. There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words, where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible. 35. In State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 this Court held as under: (AIR p. 361, para 8) "8. 35. In State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 this Court held as under: (AIR p. 361, para 8) "8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted." (See also State of M.P. v. S.K. Dubey (2012) 4 S.C.C. 578 .)" 24. Also, the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent have stated that they prepared three separate lists i.e., (i) list of members who are eligible to vote; (ii) list of members who have dues payable to the Society and (iii) list of members who did not attend general body meetings. 25. Under Section 25(1) of the Act, every member of a Cooperative Society shall have one vote in the affairs of the Society and shall exercise his vote. Sub-Section (1-A) of Section 25 states as under: "25(1-A) - A member of a society shall be eligible to exercise the right to vote only if he: (a) contributes a minimum share capital as may be prescribed; (b) (omitted) (c) is a member of the society for a continuous period as may be prescribed (d) is not in default in the payment of any amount due in cash or kind to the society for such period as may be prescribed." 26. Under Section 21(1)(g) of the Act, a person shall be disqualified for being admitted as, and for being a member if he fails to attend two consecutive annual General Body meetings without leave of absence. Under Section 21(1)(g) of the Act, a person shall be disqualified for being admitted as, and for being a member if he fails to attend two consecutive annual General Body meetings without leave of absence. Sub-Section (3) states that such person shall be removed by the General Body on its own motion or on a representation made to it by any member of a society; and proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 21 states that "no member shall be removed under this sub-Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action of removal and a copy of 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". Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Act also reiterates the same procedure. 27. There is no material placed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 to show that they followed the above procedure prescribed in Section 21(3) proviso to disqualify any member who did not attend two consecutive annual General Body meetings without leave of absence, by giving him an opportunity of being heard as mandated by the proviso thereto, and thereafter such member was removed by the General Body of the 4th respondent-Society. 28. In fact, according to the letter Rc. No. JCS/072/2020 dt. 30.07.2020 addressed by the 5th respondent to the 2nd respondent there was no situation for conduct of General Body meeting of the 4th respondent-Society due to COVID - 19 Pandemic. 29. In this scenario, there could not have been removal of any member for incurring disqualification under Section 21(1) (g) of the Act by the General Body of 4th respondent-Society at all. 30. Therefore, even persons, who are alleged to have not attended two consecutive meetings of the General Body, continue to be members of the 4th respondent-Society and are entitled to exercise the right to vote conferred on them by sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. 31. I may also point out that in sub-Section (1-A) of Section 25, there is no mention that a member who did not attend two consecutive annual general body meetings is ineligible to vote. 32. 31. I may also point out that in sub-Section (1-A) of Section 25, there is no mention that a member who did not attend two consecutive annual general body meetings is ineligible to vote. 32. Therefore, the exclusion of several members of the 4th respondent-Society by the 5th respondent and the elected Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society in August 2020 from the voters list of eligible voters for allegedly not attending two consecutive General Body meetings of the 4th respondent-Society, is patently illegal. 33. The respondents 4 and 5 have not even chosen to file copies of the said list to place on record which particular members were excluded from the voters list on the above ground. 34. The counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 could not give any valid explanation for exclusion of such members from the list of eligible voters prepared by the 5th respondent and the elected Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society. 35. It is thus apparent that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have, for reasons best known to them, deliberately prepared list of eligible voters in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and excluded a considerable body of members from the list of eligible voters. 36. The 2nd respondent, who is expected to be aware of his statutory non-delegable duty to scrutinize the election proposals and verify the voters list submitted to him by the 5th respondent and then submit proposals to the 3rd respondent authority, has abdicated his responsibility by asking the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad vide Rc. No. 3799/2020/HG1 dt. 03.08.2020 to do the above actions. 37. No valid reason is assigned by the Asst. Government Pleader to explain this shocking action of the 2nd respondent. 38. The 2nd respondent cannot be said to be unaware of the importance of the election process to the Managing Committee of a very important House Building Co-operative Society like the 4th respondent and so he cannot act in this casual manner ignoring the mandate of the notification issued vide G.O.Ms. No. 368 Agriculture and Cooperation (COOP. IV) Department dt. 29.12.1999 by delegating his duties to the District Co-operative Officer. 39. When representations regarding this action of the 5th respondent were made on 23.08.2020, 18.08.2020 by the petitioners in WP. No. 368 Agriculture and Cooperation (COOP. IV) Department dt. 29.12.1999 by delegating his duties to the District Co-operative Officer. 39. When representations regarding this action of the 5th respondent were made on 23.08.2020, 18.08.2020 by the petitioners in WP. No. 14099 of 2020 to the 2nd respondent, it was his duty to consider the same and take remedial action because a mere 256 persons were found eligible to vote out of 4980 members by the 5th respondent of such a prestigious Co-operative Housing Building Society. 40. In my opinion, his above conduct/inaction cannot be said to be bona fide. 41. I am also unable to agree with the contention of the respondents 4 and 5 that there is no situation conducive to smooth conduct of elections to the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society as alleged by them in the letter RC. No. JCS/072/2020 dt. 30.07.2020. 42. This is because the lockdown imposed by the Union Government and State Government of Telangana has been lifted in the first week of July, 2020 itself and subsequently even elections to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation with a population of at least 80 lakhs have been held in the 1st week of December, 2020 through normal process of voting with ballot papers without a hitch. For a Society like the 4th respondent with a mere 4,980 members, the 3rd respondent can certainly proceed to conduct elections without a hitch provided all safety measures and protocols prescribed by the State Government are adhered to. 43. In my opinion, it is imperative that the day-to-day affairs of the 4th respondent-Society are managed by an elected Managing Committee than a Person-In-Charge Committee at the earliest considering the location of the property managed by the said Society and the important persons living in the Jubilee Hills area managed by the said Society and it is undesirable to have its affairs managed by the Person-In-Charge Committee constituted by the State Government on 08.09.2020. 44. Though several allegations are leveled against the 5th respondent and other members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society, I do not deem it necessary to go into the said aspect in the present case since I do not think it is necessary to do so for disposing of these Writ Petitions. 45. 44. Though several allegations are leveled against the 5th respondent and other members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society, I do not deem it necessary to go into the said aspect in the present case since I do not think it is necessary to do so for disposing of these Writ Petitions. 45. Accordingly, (a) both Writ Petitions are allowed; (b) the list of members who are eligible to vote, the list of members who have dues payable to the 4th respondent-Society, and the list of members who did not attend the General Body Meetings of the Society prepared by the 4th respondent-Society's erstwhile Managing Committee and the 5th respondent as its President, are hereby set aside; (c) the Person-In-Charge Committee of the 4th respondent-Society and the 5th respondent shall prepare afresh and publish the list of eligible voters of the 4th respondent-Society strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules made there under; (d) the Person-In-Charge Committee of the 4th respondent-Society and the 5th respondent shall submit proposals to the State Cooperative Election Authority for conduct of elections to the 4th respondent-Society afresh within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as specified in sub-Rule(1) of Rule 22; (e) the Person-In-Charge Committee of the 4th respondent-Society shall invite claims or objections from the members giving a minimum of two weeks time from the date of publication of such list of eligible voters; (f) the Person-In-charge Committee of the 4th respondent-Society, after considering the objections and claims shall communicate the list of members eligible to vote to the 2nd respondent for verification and approval; (g) the 2nd respondent alone, in his capacity as Registrar of Cooperative Societies, shall make verification after calling for objections and certify the eligible voters list after necessary corrections so that it conforms to the provisions of the Act, Rules and Government directions issued in this regard; (h) the Person-In-charge Committee of the 4th respondent-Society shall submit eligible voters list of the 4th respondent-Society duly approved and certified by the 2nd respondent along with proposals specified in sub-Rule(1) of Rule 22 to the State Cooperative Election Authority(3rd respondent); (i) the above entire process including holding of election shall be completed within a period of two months from today. (j) No costs. 46. (j) No costs. 46. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.