IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9757 of 2005 Between: B. Appanna Babu … Petitioner AND The Joint Registrar/District Coop. Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondents 1to4: AGP for Cooperation Counsel for respondents 5&6: Sri Prabhakar Bommana This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9757 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inspection report of respondent No.3, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also sought for a direction to set aside the said report. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inspection conducted by respondent No.3, the report submitted by him and the consequential action taken by respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction, because it is only the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies that has jurisdiction to appoint respondent No.3 and respondent No.1 is denuded of any such jurisdiction. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it is categorically averred in paragraph 4 that the Government of Andhra Pradesh conferred certain powers of the Registrar on various authorities vide G.O.Ms.No.34 F&A (Coop.IV) Department, dated 16.01.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.19 Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.IV) Department, dated 01.02.1995 and that by the said G.Os., the powers of the Registrar under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies, Act 1964 were conferred on the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer. The petitioner has not ﬁled any reply aﬃdavit controverting this speciﬁc averment. In view of the same, I do not ﬁnd any reason whatsoever to interdict the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts found to be due from him. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12724 of 2005 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.08.2008 ES