THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29219 of 2010 Date: 24.11.2010 Between: Jetti Nageswara Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Cooperation The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 25.09.2010, of respondent No.2. The petitioner is the President of Narsapur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, West Godavari District. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 has instituted an inquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and appointed respondent No.4 as Inquiry Officer. The main ground, on which, the impugned order is assailed is that respondent No.2 has failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 51 of the Act. This plea is based on the premise that seven members of the Managing Committee have not directly submitted representation to respondent No.2 and that instead, the local MLA has sent the representation of the seven members of the Managing Committee to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Bhimavaram, who in turn placed the same before respondent No2. In my opinion, by instituting an inquiry, the interests of the petitioner are in no way affected. The alleged procedural illegality in the institution of the inquiry does not in any manner vitiate the decision making process of respondent No.2 as the substantive requirement of request coming forth from 1/3rd of members of the Managing Committee is complied with, though the request may not have been directly made to respondent No.2, but was rooted through his subordinate i.e., the Divisional Cooperative Officer. Even otherwise, where respondent No.2 feels that the affairs of the society required to be inquired into, he can suo motu order for an inquiry. In the light of these facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37212 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.24.11.2010 VGB