THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13429 OF 2008 ORDER: The 5th respondent herein is a society registered under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). It appears that some of the members of the 5th respondent society made a representation dated 2.11.2007 making certain allegations against the EX- President of adhoc Person-in-charge of 5th respondent society and requesting to appoint a departmental Special Oﬃcer and conduct elections for regular Managing Committee to the society. On the basis of the said representation, the 2nd respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.321, dated 12.11.2007, according permission to the 3rd respondent – Commissioner for Co-operation & Registrar of Co-operative Societies to appoint a Special Oﬃcer to manage the aﬀairs of the society and to conduct enquiry into the allegations made in Representation dated 2.11.2007 and submit a detailed report. According to the writ petitioners, who claim to be the members of the 5th respondent society the persons who made the representation dated 2.11.2007 are not at all members of the society. Alleging that they made the said representation dated 2.11.2007 with all false allegations fraudulently utilizing a letter head of the society, the petitioners made a representation dated 25.02.2008 before the 2nd respondent herein, requesting to initiate enquiry into the alleged fraud played by the said 11 persons and to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though a copy of the said representation dated 25.02.2008 was also marked to the respondents 1, 3 and 4, none of the respondents have responded and no action has been initiated so far. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 in initiating action on the basis of the representation of the petitioners dated 25.02.2008 against the eleven alleged members of the 5th respondent/society as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the speciﬁc case of the petitioners is that the eleven signatories to the complaint dated 2.11.2007, are not the members of the 5th respondent/society. It is stated that having made a complaint under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioners obtained a copy of the complaint dated 2.11.2007 from the oﬃce of the 2nd respondent and the same has been placed before this Court. A perusal of the said complaint shows that various allegations were made with regard to the functioning of the society including that the former President of the society having altered the layout was attempting to sell away the plots by collecting huge amounts from the public. It is also alleged that though the period of managing committee expired on 14.05.2004, no elections have been conducted and the person in-charge committees are being appointed from time to time. Accordingly, a request was made to appoint a Special Oﬃcer to conduct the elections to the managing committee of the society. It is brought to my notice by the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation that pursuant to the complaint dated 2.11.2007, a Special Oﬃcer was already appointed and challenging the same some of the members of the 5th respondent society ﬁled a writ petition which is pending before this Court. So far as the alleged fraud played by the eleven signatories to the complaint dated 2.11.2007 is concerned, in case the said allegations are established, the said signatories are liable for criminal prosecution. Moreover, under Section 31-A(16) of the Act, the committee of the society is also empowered to initiate action for prosecution of any person who has incurred criminal liability under the provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Hence, if aggrieved, the petitioners ought to have taken appropriate steps as provided under law to initiate action for prosecution on the ground of alleged fraud played by the 11 non-members. Since the respondents 1 to 4 herein to whom the petitioners made a representation dated 25.2.2008 cannot be held to have failed to discharge any statutory obligation in not acting upon the representation of the petitioners, the writ of mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out the appropriate remedy available under law, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 05.08.2008. Kgr