THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.20507 of 2011 Date: 21.07.2011 Between: R. Madhusudhan Rao, President of Anantapur Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Anantapur. … Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.20507 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Society, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. Petitioner is the President of Anantapur Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Anantapur. One Smt. K. Bhagya Lakshmi, w/o. late K. Gopala Krishnamacharyulu is said to have made a representation to the 2nd respondent-District Cooperative Officer, Anantapur alleging that a house plot bearing No.52 in L.P.No.707/84, in an extent of Acs.6.50 cents, which was allotted to her husband, was irregularly transferred and registered in favour of one J. Sudhakar, s/o. J. Konappa vide resolution No.3, dated 7.4.2010 of the society. She submitted the said complaint to the 5th respondent - Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Anantapur, during the course of enquiry undertaken by him under Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity “the Act”) initiated in pursuance of the complaint of one R. Viswanatha Reddy and others. Based on the report submitted by the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent-Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Anantapur, issued the impugned show cause notice in Rc.No.150/2009-NC (H), dated 6.7.2011 calling upon the Managing Committee of the society to explain as to why it should not be superceded under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. It is stated that the society has submitted its explanation to the said show cause notice on 18.7.2011. 3. The impugned show cause notice is challenged mainly contending that the enquiry conducted by the 5th respondent was with reference to the complaint of R. Viswanatha Reddy and others. It is contended that the 5th respondent was not authorized by the 4th respondent to conduct any enquiry with reference to the complaint of Smt. K. Bhagya Lakshmi. Therefore, during the course of enquiry undertaken by him with reference to the complaint of Sri R. Viswanatha Reddy and others, the 5th respondent should not have entertained the objection of Smt. K. Bhagya Lakshmi. It is also contended that, at any rate, the society has not been supplied with a copy of the complaint filed by Smt. K. Bhagya Lakshmi and hence the society is not in a position to submit an effective explanation. 4. It is well settled that no writ would ordinarily lie against a show cause notice except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In the instant case, there is no dispute that as per Section 34 of the Act, the 4th respondent-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Anantapur is the competent authority to initiate action against the society. Therefore, there is no error of jurisdiction as regards the issuance of the impugned show cause notice. 5. As mentioned above, the only objection of the petitioner appears to be that the society has not been furnished necessary material and an opportunity to defend its case before a decision is taken. It may be mentioned that if the society requires any material or a copy of the representation of Smt. K. Bhagya Lakshmi, it could have obtained the same by approaching the 4th respondent. The society could have also made this as a ground of challenge in its explanation and defend its case. In fact, Section 34 of the Act obligates the competent authority to provide an opportunity of making a representation before an order is passed. 6. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to direct the 4th respondent-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Anantapur, to supply a copy of the representation of Smt. K. Bhagya Lakshmi, w/o. late K. Gopala Krishnamacharyulu to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, on such supply, receive further explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 21.07.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.20507 of 2011 21.07.2011 (Msr)