Authority: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 18 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Six individual members of Vadlavanipalem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd (including President Ande Veera Venata Satyanarayana) and several other society members.
  • Respondents: The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Secretary, Department of Cooperation), Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhimavaram, Sub‑Divisional Cooperative Officer, Narsapur, Assistant Registrar No I (Chairperson of the Person‑in‑Charge Committee), Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Magalturu, and the Society itself.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (No. 18636 of 2009) filed on the ground that the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 25‑08‑2009 cancelling the Managing Committee and appointing a person‑in‑charge violated principles of natural justice.
  • Key Dates:
  • 21‑08‑2009: Resolution No. 6 of the Society deferred acceptance of resignations and proposed to decide after completion of the Society building.
  • 25‑08‑2009: Deputy Registrar, without notice, cancelled the Managing Committee (seven of thirteen members had resigned) and appointed a person‑in‑charge under Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Co‑operative Societies Act, 1964.
  • Allegations: The order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing, contrary to Section 34(1) of the Act which mandates notice before supersession of a committee, and the Registrar mis‑applied Section 32(7) which is intended only where no committee exists.
  • Legal Questions Referred to Full Bench:

1. Whether a notice and opportunity to be heard is mandatory before exercising the power to appoint a person‑in‑charge.

2. Whether Rule 23‑AAA of the Andhra Pradesh Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1964 is within the rule‑making power conferred by the Act.

  • Statutory Provisions Discussed:
  • Section 30 (ultimate authority of the society vested in the General Body).
  • Section 32(7) – appointment of a person‑in‑charge when no committee exists or a general body cannot be convened.
  • Section 34(1) – supersession of a functioning committee after giving notice and hearing.
  • Section 79A(1)(e) – penalty for conducting a meeting without quorum.
  • Rule 23 – quorum requirements (minimum 1/10th of total members for General Body; majority for Committee).
  • Rule 23‑AAA(5) – procedure when a majority of the Managing Committee resigns.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The Registrar incorrectly concluded that the committee ceased to exist because the remaining members could not form a quorum; the law distinguishes between a non‑functioning committee (still existent) and a non‑existent committee.
  • Section 32(7) applies only when there is no legally constituted committee; where a committee exists but is dysfunctional, Section 34(1) governs and requires notice and hearing.
  • The Division Bench’s observations in Pamarthy Veeraswamy and Y. Venkata Rama Rao were considered, but the Court held that the later amendment inserting Rule 23‑AAA does not alter the statutory distinction.
  • The Court cited precedents (Awari Devanna, Syed Qutbuddin Qudri, Kondaiah J.) to affirm that natural‑justice principles cannot be ignored when superseding an elected committee.
  • Consequently, the Registrar’s reliance on Section 32(7) to appoint a person‑in‑charge without notice was unlawful.

Final Outcome

  • The order dated 25‑08‑2009 cancelling the Managing Committee and appointing a person‑in‑charge is set aside.
  • No costs are awarded to either side.
  • Any miscellaneous petitions pending in the matter are ordered to stand closed.

Topics: Co‑operative Society Governance, Natural Justice