ORDER
1. These three matters were heard at length, Mr. Sridhar Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Durga Reddy, appearing for the Government and Mr. Suresh Kumar, appearing for respondents 2 to 11, have advanced their arguments.
2. The matter relates to disqualification of some members of the managing committee, who were elected during January, 1992. The disqualification is on account of non-payment of the loan amount within the stipulated time. The only point raised by Mr. Sridhar Reddy is that proper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioners to meet the allegations.
3. When a complaint was filed by respondents 2 to 11 before the Divisional Cooperative Officer, respondent No. 1, alleging that the writ petitioners have defaulted in payment of loan amounts, the complaint was referred to the Co-operative Sub-Registrar for enquiry and report and the said Cooperative Sub-Registrar has reported that there was a default. Basing on that the impugned show cause notices were issued to the petitioners as contemplated under R. 24(3) of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’)- This rule has got reference to S. 2IA(b) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Rule 24(3) invests the power in the officer concerned. The officer concerned is the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, i.e., the 1st respondent herein. The rule does not say that the Deputy Registrar or the person authorised by
him, so as to delegate to the Sub-Registrar the power to conduct an enquiry with regard to the disqualification or otherwise of a member on account of default. The Deputy Registrar alone is competent to enquire into the allegation of default and he was not authorised or competent to further delegate his functions to any officer. This is founded on the dictum “Delegatus Non Potest Delegare” (there cannot be any further delegation by a delegatee). Of course, as stated above, such further delegation is permissible only if the rule contemplates. But in the instant case, the rule empowers only the 1st respondent and as such he is duty-bound to enquire himself into the allegation. His act of referring the matter to the Sub-Registrar for report is illegal and without jurisdiction. The impugned notices were issued on the basis of the report of the Sub-Registrar. No doubt, the writ petitioners sought for a copy of the report, but the same was not supplied to them. This is an act of infraction in the context of not affording proper opportunity to the writ petitioners. But in the view I have taken that the 1st respondent was not having jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Sub-Registrar and call for his report and as the said report is non est under law, I am refraining myself from directing a copy of the report to be given to the petitioners. As the 1st respondent did not act in accordance with the rules and as he has referred the matter for a report from the Cooperative Sub-Registrar without jurisdiction, the said report has to be ignored in all respects. The 1st respondent himself has to enquire into the matter and if opportunity of personal hearing is sought for by the writ petitioners, it shall be given.
4. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to enquire himself into the matter without reference to the enquiry report of the Co-operative Sub-Registrar after affording a reasonable opportunity to either of the parties and then pass a reasoned order. This exercise shall be done by the 1st respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that all consequences and steps taken pursuant to the
impugned orders shall also become non est
under law.
5. Either of the parties is entitled to file further representations and further documents as they deem fit and for that they are given one week’s time from today.
6. The writ petitions are allowed as indicated above.
7. Petitions allowed.