IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 130 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/10/2007 in WP NO : 24351 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G. Brahma Reddy S/o. Sri Subba Reddy Tsundur Village & Mandal, Guntur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Tenali, Guntur District. 3 Appli Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy TSundur, Guntur District 4 T. Srinivasa Reddy S/o. Sabmi Reddy M.V. Palem,TSundur (M), Guntur District 5 P. Hari Prasad Reddy S/o. Vema Reddy M.V. Palem,TSundur (M), Guntur District 6 T. Malleswara Reddy S/o. Saili Reddy M.V. Palem,TSundur (M), Guntur District 7 M. Mallikarjuna Reddy S/o. Maheswara Reddy TSundur, Guntur District RR 3to7 impleaded as per court order dt. 6-2-2007 in WPMP 2408 of 2007 .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appellant-petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 29- 10-2007 passed in W.P.No.24351 of 2006. The facts, which gave rise to the petition, in nutshell, are as under: Respondent No.1 had directed an enquiry under the provisions of Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), under his order dated 3-10-2006. The said order was challenged in the aforestated petition on the ground that it was not open to respondent No.1 to direct such an enquiry. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order and the judgment delivered in Mandava Laxmana Rao v. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Warangal[1] referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The case of the appellant-petitioner before this Court is that respondent No.1 had directed enquiry in pursuance of the representation made by respondents 4 to 7 who are political rivals of the appellant. According to the learned Advocate, in pursuance of such an application, enquiry could not have been directed because, according to the provisions of Section 51 of the Act, it is necessary that at least 1/3rd of the members of the committee or at least 1/5th of the total number of members of the society should submit an application so as to enable respondent No.1 to initiate enquiry proceedings. According to the learned Advocate, in the instant case, application had not been submitted by requisite number of persons and therefore, the order directing enquiry is illegal and improper. So as to substantiate the aforestated argument, learned Advocate has relied upon the judgment reported in Mandava Laxmana Rao (1 supra). We have heard the learned Advocate at length. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate and according to us, the learned single Judge has passed a just and legal order because the enquiry directed by respondent No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. Upon perusal of Section 51 of the Act, it is very clear that the Registrar, namely, respondent No.1 may, on his own motion, give direction with regard to holding of an enquiry. It is open to him to do so suo motu. He might get information from any source and if he is satisfied, it is open to him to pass an order for initiating enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. In such a case, it is not necessary that at least 1/3rd of the members of the committee or at least 1/5th of the number of members of the Society should submit an application. Even if we look at the judgment referred to by the learned Advocate, it is very clear that in that case, the enquiry had been initiated because the Hon’ble Minister had given a direction to the Registrar to initiate an inquiry. It had therefore, become obligatory on the part of the Registrar to direct enquiry, though possibly he had not formed any opinion to hold such an enquiry. In the instant case, we have gone through the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and upon perusal of the said affidavit, it is very clear that when respondent No.1 got information from some of the members, he had asked the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry to verify the records and to submit a detailed report. In pursuance of the said instructions, the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer had submitted his report to the effect that there was prima facie evidence and therefore, he had also submitted that enquiry should be ordered. In pursuance of the aforestated information received from the members and the report from the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, the impugned order of enquiry had been passed. Thus we are satisfied that respondent No.1 had received substantial information and on the basis of the said information he had directed enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. It cannot be said that the officer-respondent No.1 had acted at the behest of the persons who had submitted an application. Of course, the application given by the concerned persons gave some information to respondent No.1 and in pursuance of the said information, a further enquiry was directed to be made and as a result of the enquiry when respondent No.1 found that enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was required, he passed the impugned order dated 3-10-2006. The learned single Judge has found the said order to be just and proper and in accordance with the provisions of Section 51 of the Act. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are also in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 20th February, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies [1] 1996 (4) ALD 141