Mandatory hearing before prejudicial revisional orders and revisional control over subordinate co-operative officers upheld

A revisional order affecting existing rights and licences was held invalid because section 77(2) required a written notice and a real opportunity to make representation before any prejudicial order was passed; prior correspondence or inferred knowledge did not satisfy that mandatory safeguard, so the order was liable to be quashed. The statutory scheme also treated a Deputy Registrar acting under section 16(5) as a subordinate authority under the Registrar's superintendence, so the Registrar could entertain revision under section 77 against that officer's proceedings. The statutory delegate principle invoked in support of the objection was found inapplicable to this framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government's revisional order was invalid for want of notice and opportunity of representation under section 77(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. (ii) Whether the Registrar was competent to exercise revisional power under section 77 in respect of proceedings initiated by the Deputy Registrar under section 16(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.

Issue (i): Whether the Government's revisional order was invalid for want of notice and opportunity of representation under section 77(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.

Analysis: Section 77(2) required that no prejudicial order be made without giving the affected person an opportunity to make a representation. The order under challenge affected existing rights and licences of the appellant, and the statutory safeguard could not be treated as an empty formality. Mere correspondence or prior representations did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of a written notice disclosing the proceedings and affording an effective opportunity to answer the case against the appellant. No notice was given by the Government before passing the revisional order.

Conclusion: The revisional order was invalid for violation of section 77(2) and the principles of natural justice, and it was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Registrar was competent to exercise revisional power under section 77 in respect of proceedings initiated by the Deputy Registrar under section 16(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished the Registrar from other officers on whom powers were conferred under section 3. The Deputy Registrar, though empowered to act under section 16, remained an officer functioning under the general superintendence of the Registrar and was not equated with the Registrar. Orders passed by such an officer were appealable to the Registrar under section 76(2), and section 77 vested concurrent revisional power in the Registrar and the Government over subordinate officers. The delegate principle applicable in the cited consolidation case was not applicable to this statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The Registrar was competent to entertain revision under section 77 against the Deputy Registrar's proceedings, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the Government's revisional order was set aside for breach of the mandatory hearing requirement, while the statutory scheme was held to permit revisional scrutiny of the Deputy Registrar's action by the Registrar or Government.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute mandates an opportunity of representation before passing a prejudicial revisional order, compliance is obligatory and cannot be dispensed with by inferred knowledge or prior correspondence; also, an officer empowered under the Act but functioning under the superintendence of the Registrar remains a subordinate authority whose order can be revised under the statute's revisional framework.

---