ORDER : W.P. No. 6035 of 2021 1. W.P. No. 6035 of 2021 was filed challenging the proceedings No.1235/E2/2018 dt.29.03.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.6035 of 2021 are that the petitioner is the Fishermen Cooperative Society of Pillalamarri Village, Suryapet Mandal and District and all its members are fishermen by profession and are eking out their livelihood by conducting fishing operations. The society is having two tanks under its operation, i.e., Shobha Samudram and Kethavani tank. The fishermen of Pillalamarri Village therefore approached the 3 rd respondent for registration of the society under Section 8 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1964’) and the same was registered vide Registration No.01/QFC/2018 dt.09.04.2018 and a certificate of registration was also issued by the 3 rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner society paid lease amount of Rs.26,980/- for the Fasli year 2018 to the Fisheries Department on 18.04.2018 in respect of the two tanks and also deposited the fish seed in the two tanks with their own expenses and the authorities also issued fish seed certification and stocking certificate. The members of the petitioner society have therefore been requesting the authorities to permit the petitioner society to pay the lease amount and also to grant permission for conducting fishing operations in respect of the said two tanks and the society passed resolutions and submitted representations. However, when there was no decision taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21679 of 2020 and this Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition on 07.12.2020 directing the 3 rd respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner society and to take action in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In the meantime, the 4 th respondent society filed a petition under Section 77 of the Act of 1964 before the 2 nd respondent to revise the certificate of registration granted in favour of the petitioner society on the following grounds:- “(1) Pillalamarri village is in the limits of Suryapet fisheries cooperative society. (2) From the formation of Suryapet fisheries cooperative society fishing activities are going on in Pallalamarri village. (3) There are six members from Pillalamarri village. (2) From the formation of Suryapet fisheries cooperative society fishing activities are going on in Pallalamarri village. (3) There are six members from Pillalamarri village. (4) The Cooperative Act provisions were not followed for the formation of Pillalamarri village cooperative society and the present Suryapeta cooperative society has been formed. (5) This society has been formed by violating the acts. The 2 nd respondent observed as under:- 1. “Fisheries Cooperative society, suryapet has been formed as per the provisions of the 1952 on 17.09.1958 under registration No.297/T/H. 2. In by-law it is mentioned as Suryapet taluk. 3. It is came to know that as per CF-106 suryapet cooperative society ramagudem and pillamarri village ponds are under lease. 4. The by-law of suryapet cooperative society has been made as per the 1952 Act, and no changes were made to the same after the enforcement of Amendment 1964 cooperative act. It is noticed that no officer has taken steps to rectify By-law, N-Block. 5. Present the membership details of suryapet cooperative society Suryapet – 183, Pillamarri – 06, Rayanagudem – 52. 6. It is noticed the above said issues are pending before court, human rights. 7. The persons earlier worked one district officer gave reply to Rti letter stating that the pillalamarri village is in the suryapet limits.” Thus observing, the 2 nd respondent, vide the impugned orders dt.29.03.2019, has informed the petitioner society that the petitioner society is within the limits of Suryapet Fisheries Co-operative Society as there are 6 members of that village in the society and that it was separated from the Suryapet Co-operative Society without following the rules. Therefore, the District Fisheries Officer, Suryapet was directed to form the Pillalamarri Co-operative Society as per the provisions of the Act of 1964 within a period of 45 days as this society has been constituted without bifurcating the earlier parent society namely Suryapet Fishermen Cooperative Society, i.e., the 4 th respondent herein. 3. Challenging the revision order dt.29.03.2019, the present Writ Petition has been filed stating that the 3 rd respondent is the authority who has registered the petitioner society after following due procedure and issued registration certificate on 09.04.2018 and the petitioner society has been functioning ever since and has been conducting fishing operations in the subject tanks and respondents 2 and 3 are well aware about the existence and activities of the society. It was stated that Pillalamarri Village is a free village and the petitioner society is an independent society and therefore, the need for bifurcation of the society from the 4 th respondent society does not arise. It is submitted that in W.P.No.6725 of 2018 earlier filed by the Chief Promoter of the petitioner society, a counter has been filed by the Fisheries Department stating that Pillalamarri Village and its water sources namely Shobha Samudram tank are not included in the area of operation of any other fishermen society and that it is a free village and therefore, Pillalamarri Village is a free village and the subject tanks are not in the area of operation of any other society and therefore, the question of bifurcation for formation of a new society may not arise. Thus submitting, W.P.No.6035 of 2021 has been filed. Along with this Writ Petition, a copy of the counter affidavit filed by the Fisheries Department in W.P.No.6725 of 2018 is also filed. 4. Thus submitting, W.P.No.6035 of 2021 has been filed. Along with this Writ Petition, a copy of the counter affidavit filed by the Fisheries Department in W.P.No.6725 of 2018 is also filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the letter issued by the District Fisheries Officer to the Commissioner of Fisheries, dt.21.12.2017 stating that about 70 fishermen of Pillalamarri Village have submitted a representation for organisation and registration of Fishermen Cooperative Society at Pillalamarri Village of Suryapet District and that as seen from the records, the village and water source of the village are not included in any Fishermen Cooperative Society in the District and therefore, it is a free village not covered under the area of operation of any society and that there are two departmental tanks/I.B. tanks namely Shobha Samudram and Kethovoni Cheruvu and a GP tank with an extent of 215 acres/86.07 hectares water spread area and the representation seeking to organise a society in Pillalamarri Village has been forwarded to the concerned FDO to explore possibilities for the organisation of the proposed society at Pillalamarri and to submit a feasibility report in the matter for taking further course of action and in compliance therewith, the FDO, Suryapet has submitted a detailed viability and feasibility report in the matter and the skill test in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.74, AH DD & Fisheries (Fish-II) Dept., dt.21.10.2011 has been conducted in the presence of the Three Man Committee constituted in the Government Orders for identification of genuine and skilled fishermen and out of 70 applicants, 40 persons attended the skill test conducted on 08.11.2017 and 35 persons were identified as genuine fishermen having the fishing skills and therefore, the registration of Pillalamarri Fishermen Cooperative Society was recommended. He has also referred to the order dt.07.12.2020 of this Court in W.P.No.21679 of 2020 filed by the petitioner society, wherein the 3 rd respondent therein was directed to consider the representations of the petitioner society and take action in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. 5. It is noticed that the former President of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet had submitted a revision petition under Section 77 of the Act of 1964 dt.16.10.2018 in respect of which, a notice dt.25.02.2019 was issued and the report of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Pillalamarri, Suryapet District dt.25.03.2019 was also considered and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had observed that Pillalamarri Fisheries Cooperative Society was formed without considering the present situation and therefore, the District Fisheries Officer, Suryapet was directed to form the Pillalamarri Fisheries Cooperative Society as per the provisions of the Act of 1964 and that the process shall be finished within a period of 45 days from the date of the order and submit the proposals and Suryapet Working Committee was directed to cooperate as per the rules of the cooperative society. In the impugned order, it was observed that Pillalamarri Village is in the limits of Suryapet Fisheries Cooperative Society and that there are six members from that village who are members of the Suryapet Fisheries Cooperative Society and therefore, the society water bodies are part of Suryapet Fisheries Cooperative Society and the bifurcation has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1964. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner society submitted that the registration of the society was done by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and therefore, he cannot also be the revising authority. The revision ought to have been done by the Government and not by the Registrar himself and therefore, the revision order itself is not maintainable. In support of his contentions that the certificate of registration dt.09.04.2018 issued by the District Fisheries Officer/Ex-Officio Deputy Rgistrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies, Suryapet is under the delegated power of the Registrar and therefore, it has to be considered as issued by the Registrar, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Alok Kalia Vs. Charu Agrawal , FAO (OS) No. 48/2023, CM APPL. No. 18126/2023 dated 27.09.2024. 7. As regards the contention that Pillalamarri Village is a free village and therefore, no bifurcation of the society from Suryapet Fisheries Cooperative Society is required, he placed reliance upon the counter affidavits filed by the DFO in W.P.No.41947 of 2017 and W.P.No.6725 of 2018. Charu Agrawal , FAO (OS) No. 48/2023, CM APPL. No. 18126/2023 dated 27.09.2024. 7. As regards the contention that Pillalamarri Village is a free village and therefore, no bifurcation of the society from Suryapet Fisheries Cooperative Society is required, he placed reliance upon the counter affidavits filed by the DFO in W.P.No.41947 of 2017 and W.P.No.6725 of 2018. It is submitted that the DFO, after following the due process of law as per G.O.Ms.No.6 dt.24.03.2016, has formed the petitioner society and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. He submitted that the society was registered by the Commissioner of Fisheries/Ex-officio Registrar and therefore, he lacks jurisdiction to revise his own order though such a power is exercised under delegated powers of the Government under Section 3 of the Act of 1964 by the Sub-Registrar- cum-DFO on the principles of agency. He placed reliance upon the the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Alok Kalia Vs. Charu Agrawal (supra). He further submitted that the power may not be exercised under Section 77 in the event of an appeal remedy available under Section 76(1) of the Act of 1964 and therefore, the 4 th respondent ought to have filed an appeal under Section 76(1) of the Act of 1964. 8. Thirdly, it is submitted that any decree or order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and that invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan , 1954 AIR SC 340 . It is further submitted that the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet has deliberately not filed the certificate of incorporation and filed copy of only their bye-laws reflecting Suryapet Taluk consisting of 18 villages under its area of operation and Pillalamarri was shown as part village and therefore, the order passed by the Ex-officio Registrar is not sustainable. 9. It is further submitted that the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet has deliberately not filed the certificate of incorporation and filed copy of only their bye-laws reflecting Suryapet Taluk consisting of 18 villages under its area of operation and Pillalamarri was shown as part village and therefore, the order passed by the Ex-officio Registrar is not sustainable. 9. The 3 rd respondent, the District Fisheries Officer, has filed a counter affidavit stating that there are no details of the villages under its operation mentioned in the bye-laws of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet and the mention was only Suryapet Taluk and on the basis of the same, the 3 rd respondent has declared Pillalamarri as a free village and sent proposals to the 2 nd respondent for formation of a new society at Pillalamarri Village and accordingly, the 2 nd respondent permitted formation of the society consisting of Pillalamarri fishermen. It is further submitted that Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet was formed in the year 1958 and Suryapet Taluk was the area of operation as mentioned in the bye-laws and 6 members from Pillalamarri were also part of the society as per the records of the society and therefore, the tanks/water bodies in Pillalamarri Village are also part of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet and hence, the revision petition filed by the 5 th respondent society has been allowed. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries reiterated above submissions. 11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the registration of the petitioner society vide proceedings dt.09.04.2018 is after following due procedure, i.e., after obtaining viability report and also after conducting the skill test. The certificate of registration is issued by the District Fisheries Officer/Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies, Suryapet. Section 6 of the Act of 1964 provides for the procedure for registration of a Co-operative Society and Section 8 provides that the Registrar shall issue a certificate of registration signed and sealed by him. In this case, it appears that the Deputy Registrar of Fishermen Co- operative Societies has issued the certificate of registration under delegated powers. Therefore, the certificate has to be deemed to have been issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies only. In the case of Alok Kalia Vs. Charu Agrawal (supra), the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Rajul Gupta Vs. Therefore, the certificate has to be deemed to have been issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies only. In the case of Alok Kalia Vs. Charu Agrawal (supra), the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Rajul Gupta Vs. Pratap Singh and another , 2013 : DHC : 6070-DB , wherein it was observed thus: “22. As an ordinary rule, delegation of powers or functions by an authority or a person to another authority does not imply that the said principal authority is completely denuded of its power. This is so, because the delegate in exercise of the delegated powers acts as a principal. Thus, while the delegate can exercise the power, the principal too can exercise the same power unless there is any specific statutory provision which bars the same. The Supreme Court in the case of Godawari S. Parulekar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 1404 also expressed a similar view and cited the following passage, from Huth v. Clarke: 25 Q.B.D. 391, with approval:- “Delegation, as the word is generally used, does not imply a parting with powers by the person who grants the delegation, but points rather to the conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself.” Therefore, even though the certificate of registration is issued by the Deputy Registrar of Fishermen Co-operative Societies, Suryapet dt.09.04.2018, it has to be held to have been issued by the Registrar only. 12. The next question to be considered is whether the registration certificate can be challenged under Section 76 of the Act of 1964. This Court finds that only the procedure to be followed under Section 6 of the Act of 1964 is appealable under Section 76 of the Act of 1964. Section 8 is not provided as appealable under Section 76 of the Act of 1964. Therefore, the only option available to an aggrieved party by the certificate of registration, is to file a Revision before the Government. Section 77 of the Act of 1964 reads as under:- “77. Section 8 is not provided as appealable under Section 76 of the Act of 1964. Therefore, the only option available to an aggrieved party by the certificate of registration, is to file a Revision before the Government. Section 77 of the Act of 1964 reads as under:- “77. (1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on application made to him, call for and examine the record of any other subordinate to him and the Government may of their own motion or on application made to them, call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceeding not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by sub section(1) of section 76 to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein; and, if, in any case, it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly: Provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceeding, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant. (2) No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. (3) The Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, may suspend the decision or order pending the exercise of his or their power under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (4) The Registrar or the Government may award costs in proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the funds of the society or by such party to the application for revision as the Registrar or the Government may deem fit. (4) The Registrar or the Government may award costs in proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the funds of the society or by such party to the application for revision as the Registrar or the Government may deem fit. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, the expression ‘Registrar’ means the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State appointed as such under sub-section (1) of section 3.” It goes to show that power of revision is vested both with the Registrar as well as the Government to exercise the power either suo motu or on an application; and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him and the Government may call for and examine the record of the Registrar. In this case, the order of revision dt.29.03.2019 has been passed by the Ex-Officio Registrar of Co-operative Society/Fisheries Commissioner, Government of Telangana. Therefore, the very same authority who has issued the certificate of registration has passed the order of revision which clearly is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan (supra) has held as under: “6. The answer to these contentions must depend on what the position in law is when a Court entertain a suit or an appeal over which it has no jurisdiction and what the effect of Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act is on that position. It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether, it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pose any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be nullities. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 1 of the Suits Valucation Act on this position.” Therefore, the question of jurisdiction can be raised before this Court, even if it was not raised before the Registrar while he was passing the order under Section 77 of the Act of 1964. 13. Further, even on merits, this Court finds that the stand of the Department from the beginning was that Pillalamarri is a free village and the basis for such a stand has been that while issuing the certificate of registration to Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet, the names of the water bodies or the villages of the water bodies have not been mentioned therein. Though it is a fact that 6 villagers from Pillalamarri were also members of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet, it is not in dispute that the requests of the other villagers from Pillalamarri have never been considered for membership in Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet. Since the stand of the Department all along was that Pillalamarri village is a free village, but it has changed its stand subsequently, this Court is of the opinion that unless it is specifically mentioned in the bye-laws of the certificate of registration, it cannot be held to be part of Suryapet Fishermen Cooperative Society. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent has relied upon the Audit report of the 5 th respondent society for the Assessment Year 2008-09, wherein the area of operation of the society is mentioned as Suryapet, Rayanigudem and Pillalamarri. Even if the same were to be taken into consideration, it cannot be said that Pillalamarri was part of Suryapet. Therefore, there was no requirement for bifurcation of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet to form a separate society, i.e., Fishermen Cooperative Society of Pillalamarri. In view thereof, the revision order dt.29.03.2019 is set aside and the petitioner society shall be considered to be in existence from the date of its registration, i.e., 09.04.2018. 14. W.P. No. 6035 of 2021 is accordingly allowed. W.P. No. 10852 of 2023 15. In view thereof, the revision order dt.29.03.2019 is set aside and the petitioner society shall be considered to be in existence from the date of its registration, i.e., 09.04.2018. 14. W.P. No. 6035 of 2021 is accordingly allowed. W.P. No. 10852 of 2023 15. W.P.No.10852 of 2023 has been filed by the Fishermen Co- operative Society, Suryapet and others challenging the proceedings of the District Fisheries Officer/Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), Suryapet dt.19.12.2022 registering the amendment to the Bye-law No.1 (area of operation) of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964 without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 15-A of the Act of 1964, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. 16. This Court finds that pursuant to the revision order dt.29.03.2019 holding that Pillalamarri Fishermen Cooperative Society was formed without deleting Pillalamarri village from the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet and without following the procedure under the Act of 1964 which is the subject matter of W.P.No.6035 of 2021, the District Fisheries Officer, Suryapet has passed the order under Section 16(5) of the Act of 1964 amending the Bye-law No.1 of the society and reducing the area of operation of Suryapet, Rayanigudem and Pillalamarri Villages by deleting Pillalamarri Village from its area of operation. Challenging the same, W.P.No.10852 of 2023 has been filed. 17. While the learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit, respondents 4 to 37 have filed their counter affidavit stating that Pillalamarri Village is a free village and did not require bifurcation. However, pursuant to the revision order dt.29.03.2029 under Section 77 of the Act of 1964, the amendment of Bye-law has been made. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents further submitted that there is a provision of appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1964 to the Tribunal against the order passed under Section 16 and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, i.e., the District Fisheries Officer also supported the contentions raised by the unofficial respondents. 18. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent, i.e., the District Fisheries Officer also supported the contentions raised by the unofficial respondents. 18. Having regard to the fact that W.P.No.6035 of 2021 has been allowed, this Court is of the opinion that the consequential amendment of Bye-law pursuant to the revision order dt.29.03.2019 is not necessary and even otherwise, the amendment under Section 16(5) is appealable to the Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act of 1964. Therefore, W.P.No.10852 of 2023 is dismissed with liberty to the writ petitioners to challenge the impugned proceedings dt.19.12.2022 under Section 16 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, if required. W.P. No. 8247 of 2025 19. W.P.No.8247 of 2025 is filed by the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter dt.12.03.2025 issued by the 4 th respondent issuing leasehold rights for conducting fishing operations in respect of Shobha Samudram tank situated at Pillalamarri, Suryapet in favour of the 5 th respondent, which, according to them, is a non-existing entity under law and as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the 4 th respondent to issue lease hold rights to the petitioner in respect of Shobha Samudram tank situated at Pillalamarri, Suryapet and to pass such other order or orders. 20. This Court, vide interim orders dt.18.03.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025, has directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the order and that the petitioner as well as the 5 th respondent shall not have any fishing rights over the subject water body till the next date of hearing and the interim order has been extended from time to time. 21. In view of the allowing of W.P.No.6035 of 2021 and that the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Pillalamarri is to be considered to be in existence from the date of its registration, the interim order stands vacated and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 22. W.P.No.8247 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed. W.P. No. 12409 of 2025 23. W.P.No.12409 of 2025 is filed by Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet to consider their representations dt.11.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 for grant of leasehold rights for conducting fishing operations in respect of Shobha Samudram tank in favour of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet. 24. 22. W.P.No.8247 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed. W.P. No. 12409 of 2025 23. W.P.No.12409 of 2025 is filed by Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet to consider their representations dt.11.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 for grant of leasehold rights for conducting fishing operations in respect of Shobha Samudram tank in favour of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Suryapet. 24. In view of the finding of this Court in W.P.No.6035 of 2021, this Writ Petition is also not maintainable. W.P.No.12409 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed. 25. In the result: (i) W.P.No.6035 of 2021 is allowed. (ii) W.P.No.10852 of 2023 is dismissed with liberty. (iii) W.P.No.8247 of 2025 is dismissed. (iv) W.P.No.12409 of 2025 is dismissed. (v) There shall be no order as to costs in all these Writ Petitions. (vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in all the Writ Petitions including I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 in W.P.No.8247 of 2025 shall stand closed.