B.Saidulu vs. The Commissioner

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26373 of 2006

ORDER:

The petitioners claim to be the members of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Duppali, Atmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District. They state that till the year 2002, the membership of the society was 111 and all of a sudden, 103 new members were added. The petitioners contend that the tanks of Paladugu Village of Mothukur Mandal are also within the area of operation of the society, which is functioning from a village in Atmakur Mandal. They claim to have submitted a representation to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, the third respondent herein, with a request to take steps for bifurcation of the society and complains that no action has been taken thereon.

On behalf of respondents 1 to 5, a counteraffidavit is filed by the third respondent. It is stated that there is no consensus among the members of the society for bifurcation and therefore, it becomes necessary to verify the viability under Section 15-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). It is alleged that the interests of all the villagers are being protected from time to time.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries and the

learned counsel for the sixth respondent.

It is not uncommon that the area of operation of a society includes several villages and the tanks therein. In case the members hailing from a particular village or group of villages want a separate society to be carved out, they have to make a representation to the Registrar, who, in turn, will examine the matter, as provided for under Section 15-A of the Act. It is only when a case is made out as to the viability for bifurcation or amalgamation that necessary steps should be taken. Except making a representation, the petitioners, who are only in four in number, did not make any effort to convince the third respondent to take steps for bifurcation of the society. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot give any specific directions. The petitioners have to pursue their remedies, as provided for under Section 15-A of the Act.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the third respondent, by pleading necessary facts, as provided for under Section 15-A of the Act and as and when such a representation is made, the third respondent shall initiate action, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

__________________

Dt:06.11.2008.

kdl