IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 960 of 2002 Between: Dayankhanpalli Weavers Coop. Society, Rep. by its PIC/Chairman, G.Sreenu, S/o G.Ramakrishnaiah, R/o Kazipet, Cuddapah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Textiles) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner Handlooms & Textiles, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Cuddapah. 4 The Joint Collector Cuddapah. 5 The Regional Deputy Director, Handlooms & Textiles, Tirupathi. 6 The Asst. Director Handlooms, Cuddapah. 7 S.Ragu Ram Reddy, S/o Not known, R/o Proddutur, Cuddapah. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in Proc D.O.Lr.No. 3451/2001, F1, dt: 2-1-2002 and the consequential proceedings as arbitrary illegal,violative of principles of natural justice and article 21 fo the Constitution and consequently call for the records and set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : Oral order: The Dayankhanpalli Weavers Cooperative Society, Kazipet, Cuddapah is before this Court, aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 2-1-2002 ordering an enquiry by the 4th respondent into the affairs of the petitioner’s society with special reference to the number of looms, number of member looms actually working, source of funds, source of raw material utilization of scheme funds and supply of Power loom cloth to APCO, if any, and calling for a report on such enquiry, by 12-1-2002. The petitioner’s society was formed in the year 1947. The 7th respondent, a local MLA and who is alleged to harbor a political animus against the members of the petitioner’s society, earlier filed a representation. On such representation, the Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles by proceedings dated 21-7-2001 appointed the Assistant Development Officer as an enquiry officer. The Assistant Development Officer submitted his report on 20-8-2001 broadly exonerating the petitioner’s society of the charges of misfeasance. The petitioner further alleges that the 7th respondent submitted a further representation to the Minister of Handlooms and Textiles on 11- 12-2001 reiterating the same allegations, which led to the earlier enquiry and consequent report. The Minister, thereupon, directed the 2nd respondent to enquire into the allegations by deputing the Special Officer. A similar representation was also made by the 7th respondent to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister on 23-11-2001 instructed the Deputy Director to enquire. Eventually, committees were constituted to conduct verification of looms and to submit a looms verification report. According to the petitioner, such report was submitted on 14-12-2001. However, the 7th respondent again represented to the Secretary, Handlooms setting out the same allegations. The Secretary, Handlooms, on 31-12-2001 instructed the 2nd respondent to cause an impartial enquiry into the functioning of the society. Thereupon the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order ordering yet another enquiry. The petitioner alleges that such successive enquiries would demoralize the functioning of the petitioner’s society and would amount to arbitrary exercise of power. The 2nd respondent has filed his counter. To the extent relevant and material, at para 4 of his counter the answering respondent states that the earlier enquiry reports submitted by the Assistant Director (Handlooms and Textiles), Cuddapah and the Regional Deputy Director (Handlooms and Textiles), Tirupathi were not comprehensive and “do not deal completely with all the issues.” What this evasive phrase means, the 2nd respondent does not choose to clarify. The counter proceeds to state that thereupon the District Collector, Cuddapah was requested to appoint the Joint Collector for an impartial enquiry into the functioning of the society. In this counter, it is not stated whether the earlier enquiry reports were found to be incomplete or biased and if so what action has been taken against the enquiry officers who submitted such defective reports. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that what has now been ordered is not a statutory enquiry but a “general enquiry” by the Joint Collector and it is stated that if the petitioner has nothing to hide and had not indulged in malpractices, it need not resist the enquiry. The averments in the counter-affidavit by the 2nd respondent are wholly unsatisfactory. True, in the interest of efficient management, the 2nd respondent as the apex regulating authority is entitled to cause an enquiry into the functioning of any cooperative society within his administrative domain. As is apparent in the writ petition and as conceded in the counter-affidavit, three enquiries were already ordered in one year in 2001 and the 2nd respondent very clearly states in the counter-affidavit that the reports of such enquiries were not comprehensive. It is further pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the further enquiry (impugned in this writ petition) was ordered so as to ensure an impartial enquiry. If the suggestion of this averment is that the earlier enquiries were negligent or biased, the 2nd respondent ought to have enquired into the conduct of the earlier enquiry officers. Enquiries into the conduct of a cooperative society, though in public interest, cannot be a pass time, as successive enquiry do have a pejorative impact on the regular conduct of business of the petitioner society. In the absence of any clear and cogent justification in the counter-affidavit as to why the earlier enquiry reports were found defective, the succession of enquiries cannot be countenanced or upheld. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the 2nd respondent in D.O.Lr.No. 3451/2001 F1, dated 2-1-2002 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 15th April, 2009. GRR