IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 58 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/08/2008 in WP No.15230 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Allu Bhanumati W/o.Gowri Naidu R/o.D.No.49-56-3/A Vidyuthnagar, Visakhapatnam ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra pradesh Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The District Cooperative Central bank rep by its person incharge and Collector, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following Judgment: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.58 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per BPR, J) Heard both sides and at their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The appellant, who is partly unsuccessful, filed this appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, 1865, seeking to assail orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15230 of 2005 dated 27.08.2008. The writ petition was filed seeking to declare the proceedings dated 09.12.2004 issued by the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge, by taking into account the fact that the impugned proceedings are only in the nature of a show cause notice, directed the petitioner to file explanation, which would be considered by the respondents, on merits, and disposed of. Hence this Writ Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the show cause notice is virtually conclusion as to the issue involved on the part of the respondents, there is nothing left for enquiry and therefore, such an approach by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable having regard to the nature and scope as contemplated under Section 60 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for brevity) and since nothing would turn out even if an enquiry is conducted. These submissions are refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Having considered the submissions made and also on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point that falls for consideration is whether the impugned order is only a show cause notice arising out of the purported enquiry under the Act. It is well established that the procedure contemplated being comprehensive and detailed one, it cannot be decided simply on receipt of explanation. Necessarily detailed enquiry has to be conducted by giving sufficient opportunity to the parties to produce evidence in respect of their respective cases. The apprehension of the appellant as to the virtual conclusion of the issue involved cannot be accepted at this juncture. Necessarily in the process of the proceedings of this nature, the respondents have to refer to the earlier proceedings including the inspection report etc., as provided under the provisions of the Act. That itself cannot be considered as reasonable opinion. The appellant can as well file comprehensive detailed explanation raising all the objections. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall file the explanation within four weeks from today. No costs. __________________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) 03rd July, 2009 __________________________ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) GHN