IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3922 of 2008 Between: P.Venkat Reddy, S/o.P.Malla Reddy, R/o.H.No.12-1-19/1(old) 12-1-26(new) Mohinpura,Siddipet(V) &(M) Medak Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Coopertive Officer,Siddipet Division Siddipet,Medak Dist 2 The P.A.C.S Kondapaka Kondaka(V)&(M) Medak Dist Rep.by its Prisident 3 Dist Cooperative Officer, Medak Medak Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the petitioner vide proceedings dt.23-2-2008 basing on the directions of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.916/2007-C,dt.18-2-2008 and consequently set aside the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRDADIRADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3922 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Secretary in the 2nd respondent- Society. An inquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) was ordered into the affairs of the Society, by the 3rd respondent. Directions under Section 59 of the Act were issued by the 3rd respondent, to place the petitioner under suspension. Necessary follow up action was initiated by the 1st respondent. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent issued an order dated 23-02- 2008, placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri Dadi Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, for respondents 1 and 3, and Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, for respondent No.2. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 09-01-2008, directing an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act, into the affairs of the Society. This was preceded by a report submitted by the 1st respondent, alleging the irregularities against the petitioner, in the context of making remittances of the daily collections. Shortly thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 02-02-2008 directing that the petitioner be placed under suspension, under Section 59 of the Act. From a mere perusal of Section 59 it becomes clear that suspension under that provision can be ordered only on the basis of a report, in an inspection, audit, or inquiry, under the relevant provisions of the Act. Admittedly, no such report has emerged. The 2nd respondent passed the order of suspension only on the basis of the instructions and directions received from respondents 1 and 3. Therefore, the order of suspension cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is facing allegations of irregularities, in the context of making deposits and maintenance of accounts. To protect the interests of the 2nd respondent, it is directed that the petitioner shall submit the daily accounts of the Society, to the 1st respondent, on every day, and he shall not incur any expenditure for the Society, except with the approval of the 1st respondent. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.16-04-2008. KO* To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}