IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15230 of 2005 Between: Allu Bhanumati W/o.Gowri Naidu R/o.D.No.49-56-3/A Vidyuthnagar, Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER 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 Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. M.S.RAMACHANDRAN RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 09.12.2004 issued by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.S.Ramachandran Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record. The impugned proceedings are in the nature of a show cause notice issued under Section 60(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the writ petition was based on three contentions, namely, 1) the Joint Collector, who issued the show cause notice had no jurisdiction; 2) the Joint Collector being in the Management as Vice-Chairman of respondent No.4 bank is precluded from deciding the lis by applying the well-known principle that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause and 3) the Joint Collector in issuing the show cause notice, has not followed the established procedure, he fairly stated that in view of the changed circumstances, he is not pressing the ﬁrst two referred contentions. As regards the third contention, he referred to the last page of the show cause notice, wherein the Joint Collector called upon the petitioner to answer various aspects mentioned in the notice as contained in the Inspection Report of the Inspection Oﬃcer and stated that if she fails to attend his oﬃce and ﬁle her written statement with evidence, it will be construed that she has no material evidence to contradict the aspects of the Inspection Oﬃcer and that action as deemed necessary under Section 60(1) of the Act will be taken on merits to recover a sum of Rs.10,93,000/- together with interest @18% per annum. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Sammeta Rama Subba Rao v. President, Kaikaluru Irrigation and Power Department, Sub- Divisional Employees Coop-credit Society Limited and others[1] and also a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Challa Sanyasinaidu v. Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies, Srikakulam[2], wherein this Court explained the procedure to be followed under Section 60 of the Act. There cannot be any dispute about the said procedure in view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court in the above-mentioned judgments. It is, therefore, permissible for the petitioner to ﬁle her detailed explanation regarding merits of the case, including the procedure to be followed by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam in adjudicating the issue with respect to which he issued the show cause notice. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to ﬁle her explanation within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th AUGUST, 2008. kvni [1] 1994(1) A.P.L.J. 200 (HC) [2] 1998(1) ALT 482 (D.B.)