THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.30567 of 2010 DT.07.12.2010 Between: Prakasam District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited … Petitioner And The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Department of Cooperation, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Sriharsha Reddy Counsel for respondents: GP for Cooperation The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in purporting to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner-Union vide notice, dated 20.11.2010, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Sri P.Sriharsha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner is the Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union of Prakasam District. It has felt aggrieved by notice, dated 20.11.2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has informed the petitioner that an Inquiry Officer was appointed in exercise of his powers under Section 29 of the Act and it was called upon to attend the inquiry with certain documents as referred to in the notice. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on an earlier occasion, respondent No.2 has passed a similar order, questioning which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21686 of 2010 on the ground that for ordering an inquiry, not less than one-third of the Directors, or not less than one-tenth of the members of the Society shall give a requisition under Section 29 of the Act and that this Court has granted interim stay of all further proceedings, through order, dated 31.08.2010. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that a perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has acted on certain allegations made against the Society and that therefore there was no independent application of mind. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Section 29 of the Act imposes an obligation on every Cooperative Society to furnish any relevant information required by the Registrar in order to enable him to satisfy whether the Cooperative Society has conducted its affairs in accordance with the cooperative principles and the provisions of the Act. Under sub-section (2) of the said Section, the Registrar may of his own motion and shall on the application of a federation to which the Cooperative Society concerned is affiliated or of any creditor to whom the Cooperative Society is indebted or of not less than one-third of the Directors, or of not less than one-tenth of the members, hold an inquiry or cause an inquiry to be made into the specific matter or matters relating to any gross violation of any of the provisions of the Act by the Cooperative Society. The object underlying the above provisions is that every Cooperative Society shall conduct its affairs to achieve the cooperative principles and the objectives with which the society is formed. If the Registrar is satisfied that an inquiry into the allegations of violation of the provisions of the Act needs to be held, he is empowered to order for such an inquiry on his own. If a demand for inquiry is made by the category of persons referred to in the provision and noted above, it is incumbent upon the Registrar to order for such an inquiry. Evidently, it is only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the affairs of the society are being run in accordance with the cooperative principles and the provisions of the Act, that such an inquiry is envisaged. By ordering such an inquiry, no person can claim to have suffered any prejudice. Therefore, in my opinion, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be illusory. If the petitioner-Union is being run in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it can always satisfy the Inquiry Officer with reference to the material in possession and come out with flying colours. As the petitioner has not disputed the power of the Registrar to order for an inquiry suo motu, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to interdict respondent No.2 from exercising such power. The contention of the learned counsel that respondent No.2 has not applied his mind and that he was merely swayed away by certain disgruntled elements does not merit acceptance, because while forming his own opinion, respondent No.2 is entitled to consider the allegations made against the society by any person or group of persons. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.38930 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 07.12.2010. VGB