IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28445 of 2010 Between: Sathi Ammi Reddy & another. ..... Petitioners AND Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Co-op Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri C. Raghu Counsel for respondents 1-3: GP for Cooperation Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri N. Siva Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28445 of 2010 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 14.10.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby while issuing show cause notice to the Managing Committee of respondent No.4 Society to explain why action should not be initiated against it under Section 32(1)(A) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”) within three days from the date of receipt of the notice, he has simultaneously superceded the elected committee and appointed a person-in-charge committee. While no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the Chairman of the Person-in-charge Committee of respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the action of respondent No.2 is highly arbitrary and the same suffers from malice in law. Having issued the show cause notice, contends the learned counsel, on the same day respondent No.2 has superceded the elected Managing Committee and appointed a person- in-charge committee. The learned counsel further submitted that under Section 32(1)(A) of the Act, petitioner No.1 has the responsibility to convene the meetings and that if the meetings have not taken place due to absence of quorum, respondent No.2 cannot supercede the Managing Committee. The learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 sought to support the action of respondent No.2. The undisputed fact remains that on 14.10.2010, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice to the members of the committee to explain why action should not be initiated against the committee. Surprisingly, on the same day, respondent No.2 issued a separate proceeding appointing a person-in-charge committee by rendering a finding that the Managing Committee of respondent No.4 has failed to convene general body meetings scheduled on 25.03.2010 and 28.09.2010 and as such the person-in-charge committee is appointed. In the view of this Court, this action of respondent No.2 cannot be sustained. Having issued a show cause notice respondent No.2 is bound to await the explanation from the members of the Managing Committee before passing appropriate orders for supercession of the committee. Interestingly, while respondent No.2 referred to the show cause notice issued in the order superceding the committee she has not indicated the reason why she has passed the order superceding the committee and appointed the person-in-charge committee even before explanation is submitted by the members of the Managing Committee. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of respondent No.2 not only suffers from patent arbitrariness and procedural illegality, but also legal malice. Hence, order dated 14.10.2010, whereby respondent No.2 has superceded the Managing Committee and appointed the person-in-charge committee is quashed. The petitioners and the other members of the elected Managing Committee are entitled to submit their explanation to the show cause notice within four weeks from today. Since this Court has found that respondent No.2 has acted with legal malice, respondent No.3 is directed to entrust the case to any other functional Registrar to deal with the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice and pass a final order, after considering the explanation and the provisions of law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.36285 of 2010 and WVMP.No.6046 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.01.2011 ES