THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.10352 of 2010 Date : 23-11-2010 Between : Y.Ramakrishna Reddy S/o.Y.Venkata Reddy and others .. Petitioners and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Registrar of Co-operative Societiesand Commissioner for Cooperation, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : None Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Co-operation The Court made the following : ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal though learned Counsel for the petitioner is not present. The Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings dated 17-4-2010 whereby respondent No.2 has superseded the Managing Committee of The Cuddapah District Elementary and Secondary School Teachers’ Co-operative House Building Society Limited and appointed person-in-charge for a period of six months. As regards appointment of person-in-charge, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, as the period of six months is over, the cause to this extent does not survive for adjudication. However, with regard to the supersession of the Managing Committee, a perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has failed to consider the explanation offered by the Managing Committee on merits. He has merely referred to the explanation and with a cryptic observation that the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules, has rejected the same. The manner in which respondent No.2 has brushed aside the explanation offered by the Managing Committee, reduced the very purpose of calling for explanation to a mere formality. Respondent No.2 is bound to apply his mind to the explanation offered by the Managing Committee before superseding it. It is trite that giving reasons for rejecting the explanation forms integral part of principles of natural justice and the failure of respondent No.2 to give reasons for rejecting the explanation, therefore, violates the principles of natural justice. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly set-aside. Liberty is given to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order by considering the explanation of the Managing Committee and giving appropriate reasons in the event he chooses to reject the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. ________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 23-11-2010 AM