IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17586 of 2008 Between: Sunkavalli Brahmaiah S/o. Ramakotaiah Resident of Devinenivarigudem Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The joint Registrar / The District Co-operative Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Divisional Co-operative officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 Enquiry Officer / Assistant Registrar - Auditor, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 The Sub- Divisional Co-operative Officer, Chinthapali, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari district. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI K.MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in ordering statutory enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) against the Ramannagudem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited of Ramannagudem Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District, as arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner sought for setting aside the said proceedings. Heard Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The petitioner, who is the president of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society of Ramannagudem, felt aggrieved by initiation of statutory enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. In his aﬃdavit, he averred that the nature of allegations made against the society does not warrant initiation of a statutory enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to initiate the enquiry unless such an enquiry is demanded by not less than one third of the members of the Committee or one ﬁfth of the total number of members of the society. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above pleas. Under Section 51 of the Act, the power to initiate enquiry is vested in the Registrar either on his own motion or on the application of a society to which the society concerned is aﬃliated, or of not less than one third of the members of the Committee, or of not less than one ﬁfth of the total number of members of the society. The impugned proceedings dated 02-08-2008 issued by respondent No.1 shows that Sri Pakalapati Parameswara Rao, Sri Ch.A.S.Kondala Rao and other members of the Ramannagudem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society submitted representation and raised allegations of irregularities in implementation of debt waiver and relief scheme, irregular sanction of loans, issue of loans to the deceased members, irregular maintenance of accounts, misappropriation of the funds of the society and requested to inquire into the contents of the representation. The said proceedings further shows that after conducting enquiry, the Divisional Cooperative Oﬃcer, Eluru reported that the society has not prepared the debt waiver and relief claims as per the guidelines communicated by the Government and on veriﬁcation it was noticed that big farmers were shown as small farmers in respect of 19 cases and claimed debt waiver to a tune of Rs.26.85 lakhs irregularly and there was variation between overdue loan amount shown in the audit report as on 31-03- 2007 etc. It is further stated by respondent No.1 that, on the basis of credible information, he felt that it is necessary to probe into the ﬁnancial and administrative irregularities of the society and therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 51 of the Act, he ordered for the enquiry. From the contents of the impugned proceedings, it is evident that respondent No.1 had initiated proceedings after being satisﬁed on the preliminary enquiry that a statutory enquiry is required to be held into the constitution, working conditions and ﬁnancial position of the society. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that initiation of enquiry was not in the nature of exercise of suo motu power by respondent No.1, but at the instance of some of the members of the society. It would quite well be that to start with, some of the members may have brought the alleged commissions and omissions of the management to the notice of respondent No.1. But this fact by itself does not change the character or the nature of the power exercised by respondent No.1. It is necessary to remember that even for initiating suo motu enquiry, the authority vested with such power is entitled to receive information from various sources and merely because one such source emanated from the members of the society, the character of exercise of suo motu power will not get altered into one exercised on the basis of representation of the members of the society. At any rate, the petitioner being the president of the society, and facing serious allegations of commissions and omissions, cannot interdict a statutory functionary from exercising his powers and setting the enquiry into motion in order to ﬁnd out various aspects including the working of the society. The petitioner, in my view, does not suffer any prejudice on account of such an enquiry being held. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.22863 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th August, 2008 vrn