HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.4564 of 2011 Date : 14-3-2011 Between: The Komaragiri Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS), Komaragiri U.Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari Dist. Represented by its President Ch.Sathi Reddy .. Petitioner And The Government of A.P. Represented by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Co-operation Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri N.Janardhana Reddy for Sri G.V. Shivaji Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Co-operation The court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a certiorari to quash Memo No.12394/Coop.V/2009-5, dated 30-12-2010 of respondent No.1 and proceedings Rc.No.3589/2009-A, dated 24-8-2009 of respondent No.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation. Respondent No.3, by his order dated 24-8-2009 referred to above, ordered inspection of the petitioner-Society under Section 52 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1964 (for short “the Act”). Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 by way of a Revision under Section 77 of the Act. Initially, respondent No.1 through its memo No.12394/Coop.V/09-3, dated 29-3-2010 granted stay of the order of respondent No.3. However, by order impugned in this Writ Petition, the said stay was vacated while observing that the petitioner will be given an opportunity of being heard during the enquiry. In this Writ Petition, the main ground of attack of the impugned order is that before vacating the interim order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard and that therefore the order is bad in law. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that in pursuance of proceedings dated 24-8-2009 of respondent No.3, the Inspecting Officer held inspection commencing from 14-9-2009 and completed the same by 23-1- 2010 and that he has submitted his report on 26-4-2010 to respondent No.3. In the light of these facts, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. He has thus justified the said order passed by respondent No.1. Ordinarily, before vacating an order, the person in whose favour such an order is passed is entitled to an opportunity of being heard. However, in the light of the facts stated by the learned Government Pleader, non-giving of notice has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner’s interests because by the time respondent No.1 has granted stay of the order of respondent No.3 instituting inspection, inspection was already completed and a report was submitted on 26-4-2010 to respondent No.3. In its very nature, mere conduct of inspection would not cause prejudice to anybody’s interests. Any person having objection to the inspection report is entitled to purforth his case against such inspection report if further action by way of surcharge proceedings is initiated under Section 60 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the stage at which the person who is likely to be affected needs to be given the opportunity has not yet set in. Having regard to these facts, I am of the opinion that the impugned order has not affected the interests of the petitioner. As observed by respondent No.1, the petitioner shall be given the required opportunity to putforth its case in the surcharge proceedings that may be initiated by respondent No.3 in pursuance of the inspection report. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.5648/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 14-3-2011 AM