Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Societies Possesses Power To Supersede Managing Committee Under Section 34 AP Cooperative Societies Act: High Court

"A reading of the impugned order indicates a conscious decision by the authority after analysing various aspects. In the facts narrated above, the power exercised by Respondent No.3 cannot be said to be arbitrary as there is a basis for exercising such power." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated 18 September 2026, held that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies is legally empowered to exercise the authority of the Registrar under Section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, to supersede a managing committee.

A bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan observed that this power is not exclusively reserved for the Registrar but is duly delegated through government notifications, such as G.O.Ms.No.34, to divisional authorities.

The appellant, Hindustan Shipyard Staff Cooperative Building Society Ltd., challenged an order dated 29 May 2025 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which superseded its managing committee for alleged financial irregularities and wilful disobedience of statutory directions. The society filed a writ petition seeking to quash the supersession, but the learned Single Bench dismissed the plea, affirming the Deputy Registrar's jurisdiction while placing a three-year cap on the appointment of a special officer. Both the society and individual members aggrieved by the order filed these writ appeals.

The primary question before the court was whether the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies lacked the jurisdiction to pass a supersession order under Section 34 of the 1964 Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to issue individual notices to all society members vitiated the proceedings and whether the merits of the allegations against the managing committee warranted judicial interference at the appellate stage.

Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar

The court rejected the contention that the power to supersede a managing committee cannot be delegated by executive fiat. Referring to Section 2(n) and Section 3 of the 1964 Act, the bench emphasized that the "Registrar" includes any person on whom the powers of the Registrar are conferred. It noted that G.O.Ms.No.34 specifically authorizes Deputy Registrars in charge of divisions to exercise such powers, and no exclusion for Section 34 is provided in the notification.

Authority under the 1964 Act

The bench held that the delegation of authority is a clear statutory exercise under the Act. Consequently, the challenge to the Deputy Registrar's competency to pass the impugned order was dismissed as being devoid of any legal merit. The court affirmed that the exercise of this power is consistent with the statutory framework designed to maintain the integrity of cooperative societies.

No Absolute Right to Individual Notice

Addressing the claim that each member of the society should have been served with a notice, the court ruled that such a requirement is not supported by law. Distinguishing the case from Mahabubnagar Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society vs. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, the court clarified that the obligation is to serve the managing committee members. In the present case, the record showed that notices were duly issued to the managing committee, rendering the individual members' grievance regarding lack of notice unsustainable.

Requirement of Statutory Appellate Remedy

Finding that the substantive merits of the allegations—such as the unauthorized entrustment of land and lack of transparency in allotments—require a detailed factual examination, the court directed the appellant to approach the cooperative tribunal. While upholding the Single Bench’s finding on the point of jurisdiction, the High Court set aside the observations made on the merits of the case to allow the tribunal to examine the evidence afresh.

The court directed that the writ petitioner be relegated to its remedy of appeal under Section 76 of the 1964 Act. It further granted a six-week window for the filing of the appeal before the tribunal, during which the proceedings would be entertained. The appeal filed by the individual members was dismissed in its entirety, as they failed to demonstrate any legal basis for their challenge to the supersession order.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2026