THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23798 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is one of the Directors of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Ponduru, Srikakulam District, the third respondent herein. Himself and four other Directors submitted a representation to the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Oﬃcer, the second respondent herein, with a request to cause enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) into the aﬀairs of the society. Acting on the same, the second respondent issued proceedings, dated 20.07.2007, appointing the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Oﬃcer, Narsannapet as Enquiry Oﬃcer. The fourth respondent, the President of the Society, had approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the ﬁrst respondent herein, with a representation against the proceedings, dated 20.07.2007. The ﬁrst respondent issued orders in Memo, dated 07.08.2007, directing stay of enquiry. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the steps taken by the second respondent are completely in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and there was absolutely no basis for the ﬁrst respondent to stall them. He contends that the fourth respondent is afraid of facing enquiry and stay of enquiry is opposed to law. The fourth respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, making the allegations against the petitioner also. It is stated that the petitioner functioned as a President of the society, which has since been amalgamated with the third respondent and complaints were made against him as to his functioning as President. It is stated that as a counter blast, he initiated proceedings under Section 51 of the Act against the fourth respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The second respondent acted upon a representation submitted by the petitioner and four other Directors of the society and directed enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. It is needless to mention that Section 51 provides for ordering enquiry into the aﬀairs of a society by the Registrar, either on his own accord or on a representation made by one-ﬁfth of the General Body or one-third of the Managing Committee of a society. In the instant case, the total membership of the society is said to be thirteen and a representation made by ﬁve persons would naturally meet the requirement. Assuming that one of the signatories has suﬀered any disqualiﬁcation, the total membership also gets correspondingly reduced and four out of 12 would constitute one-third. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any defect in the representation made by the petitioner and other Directors. It is not as if the society or the fourth respondent has suﬀered any immediate detriment on account of mere ordering the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. On the other hand, if the fourth respondent is not guilty of any charges or irregularities, he would come clean in the enquiry and it would enhance his image. In that view of the matter, there does not exist any justiﬁcation for the impugned proceedings stalling the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The enquiry directed by the second respondent shall be conducted, strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that it shall be open to the fourth respondent to take steps to cause enquiry against the petitioner also, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07.11.2008. kdl