THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26436 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the members of Salaried Employees Housing Building Cooperative Society Limited, Kakinada, the third respondent herein. An extent of Acs.2.38 cents of land in survey No.145/1A situated at Kakinada, was acquired by the society for providing house sites to its members, way back in the year 1986. The petitioners are said to have paid a sum of Rs.15,000/-, each, towards probable cost of the plot. When steps were initiated by the society for construction of ﬂats over the land, the petitioners approached the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kakinada, the second respondent herein, under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). On behalf of the third respondent-society, a representation was made to the eﬀect that the proposal for construction of ﬂats over the land is dropped. Taking the same into account, the second respondent passed an order, dated 19.10.2006, directing inter alia that the society shall divide the land into plots, after obtaining lay out and allot the plots to the eligible members. The petitioners state that an application for grant of lay out was also filed before the competent authority. The management of the society changed over years, and through a resolution passed on 25.11.2007, it was decided to construct flats. The petitioners state that they have approached respondents 1 and 2 with a request to supersede the Managing Committee of the third respondent-society under Section 34 of the Act, since the Committee had violated the speciﬁc orders passed by the second respondent in A.R.C.No.186 of 2005-2006, dated 19.10.2006. Their grievance is that no action has been taken, in spite of repeated representations. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter- aﬃdavit is ﬁled. It is stated that the proposed action of the third respondent-society to construct ﬂats is contrary to the orders passed by the second respondent. A show cause notice is said to have been issued to the third respondent-society directing it to explain as to why necessary action shall not be taken. It is urged that the alleged violation on the part of the third respondent-society cannot constitute the basis to supersede the Managing Committee under section 34 of the Act. In its counter aﬃdavit, the third respondent- society stated that the order in the A.R.C. was passed, on the basis of the representation made by the then Person-In-Charge and that the general body has discussed the matter at length, to put the land to the eﬀective and proper use for the beneﬁt of all the members. It is stated that a reply has been submitted to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent on 28.11.2007 and the ﬁnal orders are yet to be passed on it. Heard Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the third respondent-society. It is a matter of record that the second respondent passed an order, dated 19.10.2006, in A.R.C.No.186 of 2005-2006 to the eﬀect that the third respondent-society shall not construct ﬂats over the land, referred to above. On the other hand, speciﬁc directions were issued to the eﬀect that the land shall be divided into plots, after obtaining lay out, and the plots shall be allotted to eligible members. Undoubtedly, the resolution passed by the general body of the third respondent-society on 25.11.2007 runs contrary to the order, dated 19.10.2006, passed by the second respondent under Section 61 of the Act. The petitioners insist that the Managing Committee of the society must be superseded, on account of such a violation. It is too diﬃcult to accept such a specious proposition. Firstly, the resolution cannot be attributed to the Managing Committee alone. Secondly, supersession by itself does not sub- serve the purpose of the petitioners. The second respondent has already taken note of the matter and issued notice to the society. A reply was submitted and ﬁnal orders are yet to be passed. Further, the Act and the Rules made thereunder contain the procedure to ensure that the orders passed under Section 61 of the Act are implemented. Therefore, the request of the petitioners for supersession of the Managing Committee cannot be acceded to. At the same time, their grievance as to the violation of the orders passed by the second respondent in A.R.C.No.186 of 2005- 2006, cannot be ignored. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the basis of the notice, dated 19.11.2007 and the reply said to have been submitted by the third respondent-society on 28.11.2007, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the petitioners and the third respondent to put forward their contentions before the second respondent. Till the second respondent passes orders as indicated above, the third respondent-society shall not proceed with the construction of ﬂats. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.10.2008. kdl