THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17183 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the President of the Kopparru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. He along with six others earlier ﬁled W.P.No.1192 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the order dated 17.01.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhimavaram, under Section 21 AA (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”) thereby directing cessation of managing committee of the Kopparru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society with immediate effect, as arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing Rule nisi by order dated 23.01.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.1521 of 2007 suspended the order dated 17.01.2007 on the ground that the aﬀected persons are not put on notice before passing the order of cessation. However, this Court made it clear that it shall be open to the Divisional Co-operative Oﬃcer, Bhimavaram, to pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the petitioners. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies/3rd respondent herein issued a show cause notice dated 26.02.2007 purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under Section 34(1) of the Act calling upon the members of the managing committee of Kopparru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society to show cause as to why the managing committee should not be superseded on the ground of alleged irregularities speciﬁed thereunder. Challenging the same, the petitioner and six Directors of the society ﬁled a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent/Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 77 of the Act contending inter alia, that while the matter is seized by this Court in which the power of the District Collector in ordering enquiry into the aﬀairs of the committee is also questioned, initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 34(1) of the Act are unwarranted and unjustiﬁed. It is also contended that there is absolutely no material to initiate proceedings under Section 34(1) of the Act. Having entertained the said Revision Petition, the 1st respondent by order dated 26.03.2007 stayed the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 26.02.2007. Subsequently, on the basis of the report furnished by the Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Oﬃcer, West Godavari District, dated 12.09.2007, the interim order dated 26.03.2007 was vacated directing the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhimavaram, to proceed further with the proceedings dated 26.02.2007. The said order passed by the 1st respondent dated 30.07.2008 is challenged in this writ petition contending that the action of the 1st respondent in vacating the stay granted on 26.03.2007 without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner while relying upon sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act, which provides that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation, vehemently contended that the impugned order which was passed without giving such opportunity to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. It is true that sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act mandates an opportunity of making representation to the aﬀected party before passing any order on a Revision Petition under sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the Act. The said provision is in conformity with the principles of fair play and justice which requires giving an opportunity to the aﬀected party before any order prejudicial to him is passed. However, sub-section (1) of Section 77 deals with a ﬁnal order, under which, the 1st respondent on being satisﬁed as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision can modify, annul, reverse the same or remit for reconsideration. No doubt, it is mandatory to give an opportunity of making his representation to the aﬀected party before passing such a ﬁnal order. However, the order impugned in this writ petition is not a ﬁnal order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 77. As could be seen, it is only an order under which the interim order of suspension passed earlier is vacated. Thus, it is only an order passed pending the Revision Petition in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 77 of the Act. As noticed above, the order which was challenged before the 1st respondent under Section 77 of the Act was only a show cause notice, under which the petitioner and other members of the managing committee were called upon to show cause as to why the committee should not be superseded under Section 34(1) of the Act. Having found no valid reason to interdict the proceedings in such enquiry, the 1st respondent in its discretion thought it ﬁt to vacate the interim stay. The impugned order itself shows that the said order was passed by the 1st respondent after considering the report of the District Co-operative Oﬃcer and on application of mind to the issue involved. Such discretion exercised by the 1st respondent warrants no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition pending on its ﬁle as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, it is open to the 3rd respondent to proceed further pursuant to his proceedings dated 26.02.2007. However, the ﬁnal order, if any passed, shall not be given eﬀect to till the Revision Petition is disposed of by the 1st respondent. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 08.08.2008. Note: Furnish copy in two days. (Bo) Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 17183 of 2008 Between: Polisetty Madhusudhan Rao S/o. Koteswara Rao Society Ltd., R/o. Kopparru Village, Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., Agriculture & Cooperation (Coop- V), Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar of Co- operative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhimavaram, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo. No. 4443 / Coop.V(1) / 2008 Dated 30.07.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: