IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 544 of 2008 And WRIT PETITION NO:8409 of 2008 WRIT APPEAL NO : 544 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/04/2008 in WP NO : 8409 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1.Kothapalli Srinivasa Rao S/o.Rama Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District 2.Paladu Ramakrishna S/o.Narasimha Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District 3.Chitturi Mohana Gandhi S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District 4.Vennakota Sesha Charyulu S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District 5.Smt.Namala Bhushanam W/o.Surya Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District ..... APPELLANTS AND 1.Govt. of AP., rep.by the District Collector (Co-operation), East Godavari District, at Kakinada 2.Govt. of AP., rep.by its Dist. Co-operative officer Sahakara Bhavan, NFCL Road, Kakinada, E.G.District 3.The Govt. of AP., rep.by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies ,Prakash Nagar, Near Andhra bank, Rajahmundry, E.G.District 4.The General Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nagamalli Thota, Kakinada, E.G.District 5.The Thorredu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., rep.by its President Thorredu, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, E.G.District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad And WRIT PETITION NO:8409 of 2008 1.Kothapalli Srinivasa Rao S/o.Rama Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District 2.Paladu Ramakrishna S/o.Narasimha Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District 3.Chitturi Mohana Gandhi S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District 4.Vennakota Sesha Charyulu S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District 5.Smt.Namala Bhushanam W/o.Surya Rao R/o.Thorredu village Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District …..PETITIONERS AND 1.Govt. of AP., rep.by the District Collector (Co-operation), East Godavari District, at Kakinada 2.Govt. of AP., rep.by its Dist. Co-operative officer Sahakara Bhavan, NFCL Road, Kakinada, E.G.District 3.The Govt. of AP., rep.by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies ,Prakash Nagar, Near Andhra bank, Rajahmundry, E.G.District 4.The General Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nagamalli Thota, Kakinada, E.G.District 5.The Thorredu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., rep.by its President Thorredu, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, E.G.District .....RESPONDENTS 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 or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not holding enquiry under section 51 of AP Co-operative Societies Act into the affairs management working and financial conditions of the 5th respondent society in pursuance of the applications dated 13.3.2008 and 31.3.2008 submitted by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, unjust unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Counsel for the Appellants: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No: 544 of 2008 And WRIT PETITION No:8409 of 2008 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The appellants claim to be the elected members of the Managing Committee of the fifth respondent- Cooperative Society. It is stated that they made representations dated 13.03.2008 and 31.03.2008 to the District Cooperative Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada, with a request to cause enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) into the affairs of the society alleging certain irregularities in the functioning of the society. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon and in the meanwhile, the Managing Committee is taking several decisions which are not in the interests of the society. Stating that some construction is being undertaken in the land belonging to the society contrary to law, they filed W.P.No.8409 of 2008, and W.P.M.P.No.11099 of 2008 with a prayer to stay the construction. The learned single Judge passed an order dated 25.04.2008 directing that any construction made by the society would be subject to further orders. Not being satisfied with the said order, the appellants filed this writ appeal. After hearing Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and the learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent-society, we are of the view that the writ petition itself can be disposed of. The Act provides for inspection, enquiry and audit that may be caused by the relevant authorities into the affairs of a society. Such steps can be taken by the functional Registrar either by suo motu or on a representation submitted by the specified number of members of the Managing Committee or the members of the General Body. In the instant case, the representations with a request to cause enquiry under Section 51 of the Act are said to have been submitted by five members. There is some ambiguity as to the total strength of the Managing Committee. While at one place, it is stated that it is 11 and at another place, it is mentioned as 16. Be that as it may, it is for the second respondent to take necessary steps on the representations made by the appellants. If the representations satisfy the requirement under Section 51 of the Act and if a case is made out for causing inspection, necessary steps need to be taken and on the other hand, if the request of the appellants cannot be acceded to, the reasons therefor are required to be communicated to the appellants. Either way, the matter cannot be kept pending. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to examine the representations submitted by the appellants and take necessary steps within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of. No costs. ____________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J ________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:28.05.2008 VGB/PNB