THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29189 of 2010 DT.25.11.2010 Between: P.Thomas … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Tex) Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.A.Malathi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Industries The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in initiating inquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) into the affairs of Mahatma Gandhi Weavers Cooperative Society, Phirangipuram, Guntur District (for short ‘the Society’), as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the President of the Society. An inspection under Section 52 of the Act was ordered by respondent No.3. Evidently, the Inspecting Officer has submitted two different reports on 15.03.2010 and 24.08.2010. Finding that these two reports are conflicting with each other, respondent No.3 has felt the need of instituting an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this decision of respondent No.3 and pleaded that as already an inspection was conducted earlier, there is no need for a statutory inquiry under Section 51 of the Act. It is his further plea that institution of inquiry is wholly vitiated on account of mala fides as the same was done at the behest of the Minister for School Education. I have heard Smt.A.Malathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The Act provided for a mechanism to ensure that the Societies registered under the Act function in accordance with the provisions of the Act and do not indulge in any financial irregularities and other commissions and omissions. Section 50 of the Act provides for Audit, Section 51 of the Act for Inquiry and Section 52 of the Act for Inspection. It is, therefore, permissible for the Registrar to invoke any or all of these provisions to achieve the above-mentioned objects of the Act. The reasons contained in the impugned order would clearly disclose that as two conflicting reports were submitted by the Inspecting Officer, respondent No.3 felt it necessary to institute an inquiry. Section 51 of the Act vests such power in the Registrar for holding an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of the Society. In my opinion, mere inquiry would not affect the interests of the Society or anyone connected therewith. On completion of the inquiry, inquiry report shall be submitted by the Inquiry Officer and such inquiry report shall be placed before the General Body or Special General Body convened for the purpose of its information. In the very nature of the scheme of Chapter-VII in general and Section 51 in particular, ordering of such an inquiry cannot be said to cause any harm to the petitioner’s interests. Though the petitioner takes exception to the interference of the Minister in the decision making of respondent No.3, in my opinion, the Minister being a public representative cannot be precluded from conveying his views in the general public interest regarding the affairs of the Society. That by itself cannot be construed as an undue interference in the decision making of respondent No.3. Section 51 of the Act inter alia vests suo motu power in respondent No.3 to institute an inquiry into the affairs of the Society. Irrespective of source of his information, his decision to order for an inquiry is, therefore, traceable to this power inhered in him under the said provision. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any reason to interdict the inquiry ordered by respondent No.3. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37170 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 25.11.2010. VGB