ORDER
1. Admittedly, as on this date, the petitioner is not a registered association, under any of the enactments. As such, it is not a statutory body. But, Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent,
vehemently contended that his client is a Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union and registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act and according to the governmental guidelines, it has to purchase milk from the milk collection centres, where the agriculturists will pool their milk for sale. This is a beneficial measure for the agriculturists who own cattle and milch them. The impugned order is one of supersession of the Committee of the petitioner’s association. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel, states that the petitioner’s association though not registered under any enactment, it has been working as per the bye-laws framed for that purpose, and as such, whenever there is contravention of bye-laws, the first respondent can act and take action and in that direction only, the impugned order has been passed. But, I am unable to countenance his argument, for the reason that the petitioner-association being not registered under any enactment, the bye-laws framed are also not registered under any enactment, they have got no force of law. The result is ;hat the writ petitioner is not amenable to any action on the part of the 1st respondent and the impugned action of removing the Managing Committee by the 1st respondent is illegal and is accordingly set aside.
2. But, Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, contends that there cannot be any control for the 1st respondent over the writ petitioner-association for the reason that the governmental guidelines warrant the first respondent to purchase milk from the petitioner, but yet the first respondent will not have any supervisory jurisdiction over the writ petitioner. He alleges that the present Managing Committee of the writ petitioner-association has been indulging in the acts of misappropriation. But inasmuch as there is no statute governing the situation, the first respondent is precluded from taking any action, but it is open to the first respondent to discontinue the purchase of milk from the petitioner.
3. At this juncture, Mr. M. V. Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, undertook that the petitioner-association will submit itself for registration under the provi-
sions of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, but some time is required for that. Hence, I grant six months time for the writ petitioner to get itself registered under the provisions of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and pending that, the first respondent shall be precluded from taking any decision to discontinue the purchase of milk from the writ petitioner. I make it clear that if the writ petitioner does not get itself registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, within a period of six months from today, it is open for the 1st respondent to either continue or discontinue the purchase of milk from the writ petitioner at its own option. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
4. Order accordingly.