Telangana high court stays state rule over cooperative society, orders polls

HYDERABAD: Wondering why a state government which has to perform several sovereign functions was interfering in the affairs of cooperative societies, the Telangana high court on Wednesday stayed the operation of GO RT No 151 that brought in a new set of rulers to run the cooperative electric supply society (CESS) at Sircilla. It also asked the state to ensure an elected body runs the society.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili gave this interim direction while hearing a petition filed by CESS member A Kanakaiah from Vilasagar village in the district who questioned the government’s interference in the functioning of their society which has the distinction of being the biggest in the state with more than 3 lakh members.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel K Vivek Reddy said that the state has been diluting the spirit behind the cooperative movement. “Instead of allowing CESS to be run by elected bodies, the state has been forcing either a rule by an officer or by its nominees. To enable itself to do so, the state has amended the state cooperatives Act thrice,” he said.
Initially, the state brought in an amendment to postpone the election of a cooperative body for six months and to run the society through a person in charge. Later the same was extended to one year. The Act was later amended to allow the state to continue the rule by its nominee on the members of the society for as many as three years or till such time the elections are held.
The bench termed it as an extension in perpetuity of the tenure of an unelected body and said that it ran counter to the very spirit of the cooperative societies Act.
Arguing the case of the state government, additional advocate general J Ramachandra Rao said that the state has the power to appoint persons in charge to those societies where the term of the elected bodies had expired. Stating that work such as preparing of voters’ lists could not be done on time, the state counsel sought to defend the GO. The bench, however, was not convinced and said that it was no ground to keep nominees of the state as rulers of the society for an indefinite period, and stayed the GO.