Challa Gunaranjan, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent by the unsuccessful writ petitioners assailing the order dated 05.05.2026 in W.P. No.28886 of 2024, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was preferred assailing the action of 5th respondent in issuing notice vide Rc.No.1096/2023/C, dated 19.11.2024, purported to have been issued in exercise of powers under Section 32(5)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (herein after, for short ‘The Act’), by which the 5th respondent called for general body meeting of Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, to be scheduled on 13.12.2024.

3. Brief facts emanating in filing of the present appeal are as follows:

                  (a) First appellant/writ petitioner is a House Building Society, registered under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The primary object of society is to deal with the properties for welfare of its members. It is claimed that there are total of 93 members in the society as on that date. The present members of Managing Committee came to be elected and assumed charge on 09.03.2023 and they shall continue in office for a period of 5 years. As per the bye-laws of the society, the general body meeting shall have to take place at least two times a year and the co-operative year would start from April and ends by end of March. Thus, for every 6 months, there shall be one general body meeting. Further, as per bye-law No.38(c), the general meetings of society shall be conducted within 30 days from the date of receipt of requisition in writing from 2/3rd of total members. The said bye-law also provided for the quorum to consist of at least 20 members or 2/3rd of total members on rolls. It is stated that on 04.04.2024, in the managing committee meeting, it was decided to conduct general body meeting, therefore, notices were issued on 05.04.2024 through the possible modes of service i.e., e-mail/Registered Post, to all the members intimating that the general body meeting would be held on 22.04.2024. On the said day, since only seven members attended, due to lack of quorum, the general body meeting was postponed.

                  (b) While so, on 18.07.2024, a requisition was made by 53 members for conducting Special General Body meeting. It is stated that as the mandatory strength required for calling general body meeting being 2/3rd of members, the total strength being 93 members, the letter of requisition by 53 members fell short of such requirement, therefore, the same was not acted upon. However, based on the said requisition, the 5th respondent proposed to enquire into the matter in terms of Section 32 of the Act. The appellant/writ petitioner, as an abundant caution, stated to have submitted representation dated 11.11.2024, indicating as to the total number of members in the society. Despite the same, the 5th respondent has issued impugned notice dated 19.11.2024 directing all the members of the society to attend the general body meeting slated on 13.12.2024.

                  (c) The said notice not only intimated about calling of general body meeting, also communicated the decision of 5th respondent that there was violation of Section 32 of the Act in not convening the general body meeting, therefore, the existing committee also ceased to hold office by 01.10.2024. The appellants have immediately, by representation dated 01.12.2024, requested the 5th respondent to cancel the general body meeting and also enquire into the matter.

                  (d) In that background, challenging the Notice dated 19.11.2024, the writ petition came to be preferred.

                  (e) It is stated by the learned counsel for writ petitioner that the meeting as scheduled on 13.12.2024 was held and thereafter, in pursuance to the agenda items discussed, non-official person-in-charge committee (3 men) was appointed by proceedings dated 13.12.2024, in terms of Section 32(7)(a) of the Act and the said Committee has assumed charge. The said committee was appointed for a period of 3 months and continued for further period of 3 months. However, it is stated that, as of now, the said committee also ceased to be managing the affairs of the society and as of now, neither the elected body nor the in-charge committee is overseeing the affairs.

                  (f) The 5th respondent - Deputy Registrar as well as the impleaded respondents, some of the members of society, filed counters opposing the writ petition. Essentially, it was pleaded that as the elected office bearers failed to convene the general body meeting in accordance with Section 32 of the Act r/w bye-laws of the society, based on the requisition letter dated 18.07.2024 issued by 53 members, the 5th respondent, after examining the material available on record and evidence produced, came to conclusion that there was clear lapse in complying with statutory mandate envisaged under Section 32 of the Act in conducting at least two meetings of general body in a co-operative year, therefore, by operation of law, the existing committee ceased to hold the office for such lapse. It was also pleaded that the existing society was taking unilateral decisions in entering into development agreement with M/s.Hasini Infra Private Limited, in respect of one of the properties situated at Kurmannapalem, without the approval of the members and detrimental to their interest.

                  (g) Therefore, out of total strength of 61 members existing as on 18.07.2024, 53 members signed the requisition letter, which constituted more than 2/3rd of the total strength, which is pre-requisite for calling for general body meeting in terms of clause 38(c) of the bye-laws.

                  (h) The learned Single Judge, after considering the respective submissions of parties, ultimately dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, present writ appeal is preferred.

4. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for appellants and Sri K.Chindambaram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Yaswanth Gade, learned counsel for unofficial respondents.

5. (a) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that 5th respondent before issuing the impugned notice, should not only have heard the members who mooted the requisition letter dated 18.07.2024 and examine the material documents produced by them, but should have also heard the existing office bearers after putting them on notice and giving reasonable opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against them, thus not doing so clearly amounted to violation of principles of natural justice.

                  (b) In elaboration, learned Senior Counsel would further submit that though Section 32(1) and 32(1-A) does not specifically envisage issuance of notice to the existing office bearers and even in absence of any such enabling provision, still as consequences of the decision resulting in cessation of the existing committee affect the rights of members of such committee, principles of natural justice must be read into, particularly when the provision otherwise does not prohibit such course of action.

                  (c) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, since there is serious dispute as to whether the meeting was already held on 22.04.2024, as to how many persons attended the same, whether the requisition letter signed by 53 members constituted the minimum requirement of 2/3rd total members on roll, affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned stakeholders was very much needed and essential. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned notice stands vitiated for non-adherence to principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the 5th respondent has neither adverted to the same nor dealt with the contents of representation dated 11.11.2024, even on the said count, thus matter requires to be remanded for de novo consideration. Therefore, even learned Single Judge also fell in error in not appreciating aforesaid aspects in proper perspective, when apparently it has been demonstrated that 5th respondent did not provide fair opportunity and hearing to the appellants. The unilateral decision made by 5th respondent by merely appreciating the material and so-called documents placed before him by some of the members is unjustified, illegal and arbitrary.

                  (d) In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3191 of 2008, which considered the very same provision of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. Further, learned Senior Counsel has also relied on following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court.

                  (i) Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union on India and another ((1976) 2 SCC 981)

                  (ii) S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others ((1980) 4 SCC 379)

                  (iii) State Bank of India and others v. Rajesh Agarwal and others ((2023) 6 SCC 1)

6. (a) Conversely, Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for unofficial respondents - members of the society, while supporting the impugned judgment and the notice under challenge in the writ petition, vehemently contended that the requirement of holding general body meeting twice in a year and at least once in 6 months as envisaged under Section 32(1) since stood violated, the 5th respondent was well within his powers in directing for holding general body meeting by impugned notice, which cannot be found fault with.

                  (b) He further contended that Section 32(1-A) does not require the 5th respondent to hold any independent inquiry with regard to the aspect of non-convening the general body meetings as envisaged under Section 32(1), by mere operation of law once it is established that there was violation or non-compliance of Section 32(1), the members of existing committee shall cease to hold the office on the next day after the first day on which the general meeting should have been held, therefore, question of issuing any notice to the members of committee does not arise.

                  (c) He further contended that since bye-law No.38(c) contemplates that at least 2/3rd of total number of members in writing make requisition calling for general body meeting of the society, the requisition letter dated 18.07.2024 issued by 53 members out of 58 constitutes sufficient compliance. Therefore, the 5th respondent rightly exercised the powers under Section 32(5)(a) in calling for the general body meeting to be scheduled on 13.12.2024. In pursuance to the same, person-in-charge committee (3 members) has been appointed for a period of 3 months and thereafter, extended by another 3 months. Since Section 77 of the Act provides for revision as against the decision made by 5th respondent under Section 32, the appellants have efficacious alternative remedy, therefore, cannot maintain the writ petition.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsels for both parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

8. The entire controversy in the present proceedings revolves around the cessation of members of committee to hold the office for failure to hold the general body meetings, as envisaged under Section 32(1) of the Act. For better appreciation, it is apt to refer to the following sections:

                  “32. General meetings and committee meetings: [Rule 23, 23A, 23B, 23AA, 26]

                  (1) The committee may, at any time, call not less than two general meetings of a society in a co-operative year:

                  Provided that one meeting shall be held in each half year. (1-A) If the general meeting is not convened in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the members of the Committee shall cease to hold office on the day next after the 1st day on which the general meeting should have been held, and it shall be competent for the Registrar, notwithstanding anything in the bye- laws, to call such general meeting in such manner as may be prescribed.

                  (4) The requisition referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall specify the purpose for which the meeting is to be called, and shall be signed by the requisitionists and delivered in person or by registered post at the registered address of the society.

                  (5)(a) If for any reason, a meeting is not called in accordance with the requisition delivered under sub-section (4), or if, in the opinion of the Registrar there is no committee or officer competent under this Act, the rules or the bye-laws to call a meeting, or if there be a dispute regarding the competence of the committee to function, then notwithstanding anything in the bye-laws of the society, the Registrar shall have the power to call such meeting in the manner prescribed, and to determine the time for such meeting and the subjects to be considered thereat. The Registrar or a person authorised by him in writing in this behalf shall preside at such meeting, but he shall not be entitled to vote.

                  (b)(i) If, at any general meeting of the society called by the Registrar himself under clause (a), otherwise than in pursuance of the requisition, there is no quorum, the meeting shall stand adjourned to such other date and time as the Registrar may determine.

                  (ii) If at the adjourned meeting also there is no quorum for holding the meeting, the members present shall constitute the quorum.

                  (c) If at any general meeting of the society called by the Registrar himself under clause (a) in pursuance of the requisition, there is no quorum, the requisition shall lapse.”

9. The above would go to show that Section 32 does not provide the manner in which a person should be declared to have ceased to hold office either as a President or as a member of the managing committee. The cessation as a member of the committee has been held, under sub-section (1-A), to come into force on the day next after the first day on which general meeting should have been held and, under sub-section (3), to come into force with effect from the date of expiry of one month. While the date from which such cessation is required to come into force has been specified by the legislature, the manner in which such cessation should be brought about has not been provided for.

10. Therefore, there is no quarrel with regard to the legislative intent that cessation from office for failure to hold a meeting is automatic. However, in a case where there is a serious dispute as to whether at all a meeting has been convened as claimed in the present case, whether the business of the meeting could not be conducted on account of lack of quorum, whether the requisition made by members is valid and meets the criteria envisaged under the bye laws, are all issues required to be gone into by the Registrar while exercising the powers under Section 32 of the Act. Section 32(1-A), however, does not envisage issuing any notice to the members of the committee while deciding the matter in the process of consideration of either cessation of the committee members or calling for the general meeting as a consequence.

11. It is trite in law that even where the statute is silent in regard to granting an opportunity of hearing to the party whose rights and interests are likely to be affected, principles of natural justice to be read into. The judgments relied on by learned Senior Counsel support the said principle.

12. Keeping in view aforesaid principles, we would proceed to examine the facts of present case. The statutory mandate envisaged under Section 32(1) requires the appellants to hold at least two general meetings in a co-operative year and one meeting should be held in each half year. As per appellants, in the managing committee/board of directors meeting held on 04.04.2024, decision was taken to call for general body meeting on 22.04.2024. Accordingly, notices were issued to all the members on 05.04.2024 either by way of registered post or e-mail.

13. Though the meeting was convened on 22.04.2024, as merely seven members attended, the business could not be transacted for lack of quorum. Be that as it may, 53 members issued requisition letter on 18.07.2024 calling for general body meeting. In the said letter, it has been stated that though a meeting was convened on 22.04.2024, in view of lack of quorum, the same got adjourned and thereafter, no further meeting has been convened, therefore, the signed members requested for calling for general body meeting to specifically discuss about the issue regarding development of society's property situated at Kurmannapalem.

14. The appellants stated to have not acted on the requisition letter for the reason that it was signed by only 51 members, whereas mandatory strength required to move such requisition being 2/3rd of the total strength of society, which translates to 62, the same did not satisfy the requirement. Nevertheless, appellants had submitted representation dated 11.11.2024 to 5th respondent also informing that the requisition letter was not in consonance with the requirements of bye-laws, inasmuch as, for calling for a meeting, at least 62 members were required considering the total number of members to be 93.

15. Despite the same, the 5th respondent proceeded with the matter and issued impugned notice dated 19.11.2024. On perusal of the notice, it is very much clear that no opportunity was given to the appellants while deciding the issue despite receiving the representation dated 11.11.2024. Further, we also notice that except for recording the stand pleaded in requisition petition, no specific finding or reasoning has been given with regard to contentious issues raised and highlighted by the appellants.

16. There is any amount of dispute regarding the total strength of the society as on the date of issuance of requisition letter. Even learned Single Judge also recorded a specific finding that there is an element of inconsistency as regards the strength of the society as per the pleadings made in the writ affidavit, reply affidavit and counter affidavits. As per the appellants, the total strength of society is 93 and 2/3rd strength comes to 62 members, whereas, as per the claim of contesting respondents, the total strength of society is 58 and 2/3rd strength comes to 38. Further, as per appellants, the requisition letter dated 18.07.2024 was signed by only 51 members and not even 53 and even out of that, two of them are non-members. All these disputed questions definitely require in-depth examination upon consideration of the statutory documents as well as the records maintained by the society.

17. Since the rights and interests of the members of the committee are likely to be affected in view of the proceedings undertaken under Section 32 (1-A) and (3) of the Act, the Registrar is under legal obligation not only to issue notice to the affected but also to provide an opportunity of being heard before taking any final decision. Since the impugned proceedings are passed without prior notice and affording opportunity of hearing, affecting the rights of the appellants, the same is unsustainable.

18. In view of our observations, the order of learned Single Judge as well as the impugned proceedings dated 19.11.2024 issued by 5th respondent are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to 5th respondent for de novo enquiry. Liberty is given to all the appellants as well as contesting respondents to raise all objections, including those canvassed before us and upon considering the same, the 5th respondent shall pass appropriate speaking orders. The said exercise shall be completed not later than three months from the date of receipt of the order. Till passing of the final order, the person-in-charge committee (3 members) as appointed by proceedings Rc.No.1096/2023-C, dated 13.12.2024, shall continue to manage the affairs of the society. It is needless to observe that in case the proceedings stand dropped, on account of the final orders to be passed, the affairs of the society shall continue to be managed by the elected managing committee.

19. Accordingly, with the above observation, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.