THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6254 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not completing the enquiry against the third respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner is a member of the third respondent society and he obtained loan amount of Rs.1,92,000/- for the purpose of purchase of tractor. It is further stated that he did not pay the instalment as per the agreement and so, the third respondent issued notice, dated 25.11.2003, to him demanding an amount of Rs.22,145/-. It is further stated that due to financial troubles, he could not pay the amount and taking advantage of that, the Secretary of the third respondent society colluded with Sri Yantrapragada Surendra Kumar and Sri Yantrapragada Naga Satya Srinivas, and issued no due clearance certificates to them based on the documents produced by them forging the signatures of the petitioner. It is further stated that there were letters produced by the said persons as if the petitioner requested to adjust share capital towards loan amount and based on such letters, by adjusting the share capital towards loan amount, no due certificates were issued. Based on the same, the third respondent has transferred the vehicle in question in favour of the third parties. It is the grievance of the petitioner that based on such transfer proceedings, the third parties have taken away the tractor and trailer illegally from his possession and when a complaint is lodged against the third respondent before the fourth respondent, no steps have been taken by the police. In this case, it is to be noticed that though serious allegations are made against the third parties, by names, Yantrapragada Surendra Kumar and Yantrapragada Naga Satya Srinivas as to forgery, filing of documents before the society, obtaining no due certificates and getting transfer of the vehicle in their names, curiously, they are not even made party respondents herein. In that view of the matter, in the absence of such persons being party respondents in the writ petition, no directions can be issued as prayed for. However, if the petitioner feels that no such letters were addressed by him and the said letters are forged, nothing prevented him to file a private complaint by resorting to the provision under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In view of the factual disputes, which arises for consideration, in the absence of the parties against whom allegations are made, no directions can be issued as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2011. kvni