Obul Reddi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of our brother, Chinnappa Reddy, J./ in Writ Petn. No. 3260 of 1968, D/- 30-1-1969, dismissing the petition filed by the appellants herein under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the order of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1400, Food and Agriculture (Co-operative V) Department, dated 9-7-1968, confirming the order of the Regional Joint Registrar in Rc. No. 47168/67-12, dated 31-12-1967.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal area these. The appellants are members of the Managing Committee of the Toddy Tappers' Co-operative Society, Munappally Village, in Medak District. The Managing Committee of the Society. which the appellants represent, received a notice on 15-11-1967 from the Regional joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to show cause why the said Committee should not be superseded. In this notice, the grounds on which the suppression was proposed, were also stated. The explanation of the Managing Committee was submitted by its President on 23-11-1967. The Regional Joint Registrar, after considering the explanation of the Committee, came to the conclusion that the Managing Committee was not functioning properly and that, the members of the Managing Committee were Willfully disobeying the orders of the Deputy Registrar and also acting against the provisions of the Act and the departmental instructions.
He then, in exercise of his powers under Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), superseded the Managing Committee with immediate effect, by his impugned order dated 23-12-1967, and appointed a Senior Inspector of the Co-operative Societies as part-time Special Officer, empowering him to exercise all the powers of the Managing Committee under Section 34 (3) of the Act. That order of the Region Joint Registrar was carried in appeal by the president of the Society, and the Government saw no reason to interfere with the order of the Regional Joint Registrar and dismissed the appeal, by its order dated 9-8-1968. It is that order of the Government that led to the filing of the writ petition, and preferring of this appeal, as the writ petition was dismissed by our learned brother.
3. Mr. Upendralal Waghray, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that one of the grounds on which the Managing Committee was superseded, was that it failed to comply with the directions given by the Deputy Registrar under Rule 7-A, of the Rules framed under the Hyderabad Co-operative Societies Act, 1952 in regard to the admission of some members; that, the 1952 Act itself was repealed by the present Act under which action has been taken by the Regional Joint Registrar, and so long as there is no provision corresponding to Rule 7-A in the new Act or the rules made thereunder, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 34 and supersede the Managing Committee. It is also contended by him that, notwithstanding the saving provision (S. 132) introduced in the new Act, the Action taken by the Regional Joint Registrar under Rule 7-A of the old Act directing the Managing Committee to enroll some members, is no longer operative after the repeal of that Act and was such, that direction given under Rule 7-A cannot be made a ground for superseding the Managing Committee.
4. It may be pointed out that the Managing Committee was not proposed to be superseded only on the ground that the order issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 7-A have been disobeyed by the Managing Committee, but also on the grounds. The following are the grounds stated in the show-cause notice issued to the managing committee:
'(I) that, Sri Yellagoud, the President who is still continuing to act as President to this date and his colleagues in managing committee of Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society Munapalli willfully disobeyed the lawful orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Sangareddy in a. Rc. No. 1/63-64 dated 24-3-1964 under Rule 7-A of Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Co-operative Societies Act, 1952 to enrol the new members to the Society;
(ii) that, they are violating Co-operative principles and creating law and order problems to the police Officials as reported by the Circle Inspector of Police in the reference 2nd cited through their unlawful and partisan attitude towards the other members of the Society:
(iii) that, the Managing Committee has wilfully failed to carry out the instructions of the Deputy Registrar, Sangareddy to enrol all the eligible members in the Society and to carry out the affairs of the Society properly as per act. Rules and bye-laws during the latter's visit to the village on 31-8-1967 to make a spot inquiry of the affairs of the Society;
(iv) that , the Managing Committee of the Society has committed a breach of their written undertaking on 15-9-1967 to the Deputy Registrar, Sangareddy at the time of renewal of the Parwana that they will enrol the eligible members to the Society and subsequently by breaking the promise which is clear violation of lawful agreement on the strength of which the Department has recommended the society for Parwana during 1967-68;
(v) that, the President has refused to accept the applications for admission of the members and the share capital from eligible members of the village without any valid reasons.'
The main question, therefore, is whether the Regional Joint Registrar had power to supersede the Managing Committee on the grounds listed out in the notice. If the explanation offered by the Managing Committee was found to be not satisfactory.
5. We may now notice the relevant provisions of the Act which have bearing on the question involved in this appeal. 'Registrar', as defined in Section 2 (n) of the Act means the Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed under section 3 (12) and includes any other person on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act, are concerned (six). 'Rules' means of the Registrar under the Act (sic), Section 34 vested the power of suppression of a Managing Committee in the Registrar, and by virtue of the delegation of power, a Joint Registrar also is competent to exercise the powers of the Registrar. This section, so far as it is material, reads:
'34 (1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar the Committee is not functioning properly or wilfully disobeys or wilfully fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued by the Registrar under this act or the Rules, he may, after giving the Committee an opportunity of making its representations, by order supersede the Committee from a specified date, and appoint either a person (hereinafter referred to as the Special Officer) or a Committee of two or more persons (hereinafter referred to as the Managing Committee) to manage the affairs of the Society for a period not exceeding two years, specified in the order which period may, at the discretion of the Registrar, be extended from time to time, so however, that the aggregate period shall not exceed three years ....................................................'
Any person or Society aggrieved by any decision of the Registrar under sub-section (1) of S. 34, has a right of appeal, under Section 76 (2) of the Act, to the Government, if the decision is that of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Registrar also is vested with revisional jurisdiction under Section 77, either of his own motion, or on an application made to him, to call for and examine the record of any Officer subordinate to him. The two praises to section 132 of the Act, which deals with the repeal and savings. lay down:------
'Provided that any Society existing at the commencement of this Act which has been registered under the relevant repealed Act shall be deemed to have been registered under this Act; and the bye-laws of such Society so far a they are not inconsistent with the provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder continue to be in force until altered or rescinded in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Provided further that, Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Ac, 1891 shall be applicable in respect of the repeal of the said enactments and Sections 8 and 18 of the said Act shall be applicable as if there said enactments had been repealed and reenacted by an Andhra Pradesh Act.'
These two provisos make it clear that the provisions of the repealed Act or the Rules made thereunder, continue to be in force until altered or rescinded in accordance with the provisions of the present Act, and the Rules made thereunder.
We May notice also Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891, to which reference has been made in the second proviso to Sec., 132, extracted above. It reads:------
'Where an Act repeals, and re-enacts, with or without modification, all or any of the provisions of a former Act, references in any other Act to the provisions so repealed shall be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted. and if notifications have been published, proclamations or certificates issued, powers conferred, forms prescribed, local limits defined, offices established, orders, rules and appointments made, engagements entered into, licences or permits granted, and other things duly done, under the provisions so repealed, the same shall be deemed, so far as there same are consistent with the provisions so reenacted , to have been respectively published, issued, conferred, prescribed defined. established, made, entered into, granted or done under the provisions so re-enacted.'
To the extent that there was no repugnancy or inconsistency, any action taken or anything dull done under the provisions of the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been done or made under the provisions of the repealing Act.
7. One other section which requires notice in the repealed Act, is Section 47 (1) which corresponds to Section 34 (1) of the repealing Act. It reads:-----
'Section 47 (1): If, in the opinion of the Registrar, the Managing Committee of any registered Society is not functioning properly, he may after giving an opportunity to the Managing Committee to state its objections, f any, by order in writing, dissolve the Managing Committee and appoint a suitable person or persons to manage the affairs of the Society for a specified period not exceeding two years. The period specified in such order may, at the discretion of the Registrar, be extended from time to time provided that such order shall not remain in force for more than four years in the aggregate.'
It may be seen that both the Acts provide for Suppression of Managing Committees.; While Under S. 47 (1) of the repealed Act, a Managing Committee could be superseded did it was found to bar 'not functioning properly'. Section 34 (1) of the repealing Act provides for supersession on other grounds too. But, the basic object of the two provisions is that the Registrar should be vested with the power to supersede the Managing Committee of a Registered Society if found, to his satisfaction, as not functioning properly. There expression 'not functioning properly' is wide enough to taker within its ambit the acts of omission and commission of the Committee, which lead to the inference that the Committee is 'not functioning prop-early'. In view of the fact that there is no difference between the object of Section 34 (1) of the present Act and section 47 (1) of the repealed Act, we are unable to find any inconsistency in so far as the power vested in the Registrar is concerned, to supersede a Managing Committee under certain circumstances.
8. Rule 7-A framed under the repealed Act related to appeals against refusal of admission, and it reads thus:-------
'A person seeking admission as a member in a registered Society shall apply to the Society in writing. The Managing Committee shall consider the application and communicate its decision to the person concerned within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application. If the Managing Committee decides to refuse admission, it shall record the reasons for such refusal. If no decision is communicated to the applicant within the time specified above, or if admission is refused , it shall be opened to him to prefer an appeal to the Registrar, or the Deputy Registrar, if so empowered in this behalf by the Registrar, within sixty days from the date of his application to the registered society and within twenty days from the date of receipt of refusal by him. The Registrar or the Deputy Registrar shall, after making such enquiry as he deeds fit, dispose of the appeal and the decision passed by the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar s the case may be, shall be final and binding on the parties.'
9. In this case, 45 persons made applications for enrollment as members of the Society, but as the President and there Managing Committee wee not considering their applications, a complaint was lodged with the Deputy Registrar, who had an enquiry conducted through the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar conducted an elaborate enquiry and came to the conclusion that 31 of the 45 applicants were eligible to be admitted as member of the Society. Notwithstanding the direction given by the deputy Registrar that those 31 applicants should be admitted as members of the Society, there Managing Committee persisted in refusing to admit them. This situation created by the members of the Managing committee, created a law and Order problem, and this also was made a ground in the show-cause notice issued to the Managing Committee. There could be no doubt, from what is stated above, that the Managing Committee was not functioning properly i.e. in accordance with the provisions of the statute, the rules made thereunder, and the bye-laws of the Society.
The Managing Committee is bound, under the provisions of the Act whether the old Act or the new Act -----to obey and comply with the lawful orders of directions issued either under the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder. To admit members is a matter pertaining to the constitution of the Society itself, and when a Managing Committee wilfully refuses to admit some persons, notwithstanding a direction given by a competent authority after due inquiry to admit them as members, it cannot be said that such a Managing Committee s functioning properly. The mere fact that the aggrieved persons, who are refused admission by the Managing Committee, have a right of appeal, is no ground for either disobeying the lawful directs given by the Registrar after due enquiry, or saying that the Registrar cannot invoke Section 34 of the Act for purposes of supersession of the Managing Committee. We are, therefore, unable to find any merit in this appeal.
10. It is, true that the supersession, in the aggregate, shall not exceed three years' period, as provided for in Section 34 (1) itself. We have no doubt that necessary action will be taken by the Registrar under sub-section (5) of S. 34 of the Act, as the period of supersession has already expired. In the result, ,the appeal fails and dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-.
11. Appeal dismissed.