TIONERS/ v. Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o

Judgment

5. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation at Secretariat, Hyderabad The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Telangana State at Hyderabad The District Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District at Jagtial The Asst. Registrar, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, at Golkonda, Hyderabad The Senior lnspector, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Secunderabad .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs; Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the proceedings dated 9.9.2024 in Rc.No.7492l2024lPACS-V on the file of the 2d Respondent, in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction Award costs. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings dated 9.9.2024 in Rc.No. 7492l 2024|PACS-V on the file of the 2n1 Respondent, in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, pending disposal of W P No. ol 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. SANTHOSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. R.AHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GP OF ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 27330 OF 2024 Between: V. Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o: Atchuta Rao, Aged 61 Years, Occu: President of PACS, Pegadapally Rl/o Jagtial Town and District. ..,PETITIONER AND

6. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, at Secretariat, Hyderabad The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, l Telangana State at Hyderabad The District Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District at Jagtial The Asst Registrar, 0/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, at Golkonda, Hyderabad The Senior lnspector, 0/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Secunderabad. The Primary Agncultural Cooperative Society, Pegadapally, rep. by is Managing Committee, Pegadapally Village and Mandal, Dist Jagtial ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Proceedings in Rc.No.224712O24-C datect 2S-O9-2O24 issued by the 3d respondent purportedly exercising the powers U/Sec.21 AA 3' (1Xb) of the Co-operative Societies Act as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings in Rc-No.224712O24-C dated 25-09-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the interests of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1 . The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, at Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Telangana State at Hyderabad

3. The District Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District at Jagtial 4. The Asst Registrar, 0/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, at Golkonda, Hyderabad

5. The Senior lnspector, 0/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Secunderabad.

6. The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Pegadapally, rep. by isl Managing Committee, Pegadapally Village and Mandal, Dist Jagtial ... PET]TIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND V. Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o: Atchuta Rao,.Aged 61 Years, Occu: President of PACS, Pegadapally Rl/o Jagtial Town and District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 2211012024 in lA.No.1 ot 2O24 in WP.No.27330 of 2O24 and dismiss the writ petition No. 27330 ot 2024 in the interest of justice. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. SANTHOSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GP OF ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL + WRIT PETITION NO: 27742 OF 2024 Between: Dr S Raja Suman Rao, S/o: Late S. Sugunakar Rao, Aged 40 Years, Occu. President of PACS, Gollapally R/o Jagtial Town and District. .PETITIONER AND '1 . The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, at Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Telangana State at Hyderabad

3. The District Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District at Jagtial 4. Assistant Registrar, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies Hyderabad

5. The Senior lrispector, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Secunderabad

6. The PrimaryAgricultural Cooperative Society, Gollapally, rep. by is Managing Committee, Gollapally Village and Mandal, Dist. Jagtial ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MAN DAMUS declaring the Proceed ings in Rc. No.225 21 2024-C d ated. 25 -Og-2O24 issued by the 3rd respondent purportedly exercising the powers UiSec.2i A(1)(d) of the Co-operative Societies Act as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings in Rc.No.225212024-C dated. 25- 0g-2O24 issued by the 3'd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the interests of justice. -5' lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Depa(ment of Agriculture and Cooperation, at Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Telangana State at Hyderabad

3. The District Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District at Jagtial 4. Assistant Registrar, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies Hyderabad

5. The Senior lnspector, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Secunderabad

6. The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Gollapally, rep. by is Managing Committee, Gollapally Village and Mandal, Dist. Jagtial AND Dr S Raja Suman Rao, S/o: Late S. Sugunakar Rao, Aged 40 Years, Occu. President of PACS, Gollapally Rl/o Jagtial Town and District. ... PETITONERS/RESPONOENTS ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 0411012024 in lA.No.1 of 2O24 in WP.No.27742 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition No.27742 ol 2024 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. SANTHOSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GP OF ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO:27755 OF 2024 Between: Allala Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Raja Reddy, Age. 46 Years, Occ. President of The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District. ...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Agriculture and Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Telangana State at Hyderabad.

3. The District Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District, Jagtial Proper and District. 4. The Assistant Registrar, Office of Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, At Golconda, Hyderabad.

5. The Senior lnspector, Office of Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, At Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

6. The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Dharmapuri, Represented by its Managing Commiftee, Dharmapuri Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an rlrder or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings in Rc. No. 225112O24-C, dated 2510912024, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 'f OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in Rc. No. 225112O24-C, dated 25logl2o24. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 'l . The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Agriculture and Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Telangana State at Hyderabad.

3. The District Cooperative Offlcer, Jagtial District, Jagtial Proper and District. 4. The Assistant Registrar, Office of Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, At Golconda, Hyderabad.

5. The.Senior,ln-spector, Office of Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, At Secunderabad, Hyderabad

6. The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Dharmapuri, Reoresented bv its Managing Committee, Dharmapuri Propei and ManiJal, Jagtial District. ' -1 AND ...PETITONERS/RESPONDETS Allala Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Raja Reddy, Age. 46 Years, Occ. President of The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri Proper and Mandal, Jagtial District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the interim order dated 22.'1O.2O24 in l.A.No.1 of 2fi24 in W.P.No.27755 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition No.27755 of 2024 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GP OF ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO:28153 OF 2024 Between:

1. Voruganti Rajashekar Rao, S/o: V Achyuth Rao, Aged 67 Years, Occu. Vice President of PACS, Pegadapally Rl./o Jagtial Town and District.

2. Ajmera Harilal, S/o: Thode Naik Aged 66 Years, Occu. Managing Commiftee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Rl/o Edumotalapally Thanda , Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

3. Seegiri Swaroopa, W/o Madan , Aged 36 Years Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , R/o Pegadapally Village And Mandal Jagtial District. '4. Gandra Praveen Rao, S/o Venkat Rao Aged 46 Years , Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Fi/o Pegadapally Village And Mandal Jagtial District.

5. Sagi Gopal Rao, S/o Kantha Rao Aged 70 Years , Occu Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Rl/o Vengalaipet Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

6. Sailla Yellaiah, S/o Pochaiah , Aged 39 Years Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally R/o Maddulapally Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

7. Pentala Srinivas, S/o Narsaiah , Aged 45 Years Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Rl/o Maddulapally Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

8. Musku Sumalatha, W/o Tirupathi Reddy Aged 36 Years Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally Rl/o Maddulapally Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District. -*-

9. vollala srinivas, S/o Rajamallu Aged 48 years occu . Manaqinq committee Member of PACS, Peoadapaily , R/o Bathkapaili Viilage ,pega:ctaiaily MJndJ Jagtial District l0.Maddela S-u_dfge-r, S/o Sathaiah {ge{45 years Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS. peoadapally , R7o Bathkapalti Viilage ,p;g-a"d;Ertft M;;a; Jagtial District, 1l.Thota Mallesham, S/o Bhoomaiah Aged 49 years Occu Manaoino Committee Member of ..q{qq,. .pega-dapaily , R/o 'Vengatap"i -Vifi"gE ,Pegadapally lvlandal Jagtial District. - 12. surakanti salhi Reddy, S/o chukka Reddy Aged 42 years, occu . Manaoino uommrtree Member of ..plgsr. pegadapally , Rl/o Maddulapally Viliag6 ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District. - ...PETITIONERS AND

1. IE-911!g "l Agncutture and (;ooperation, at secretariat, Hyderabad fglangana,.represented by its principal Secretary, Department of

2. The Director for cooperation a.nd Registrar of cooperative societies, Telangana State at Hyderabad

3. The District Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District at Jagtial 4. The Asst. fegiskar, o/o Director and Registrar of cooperative Societies, at Golkonda, Hyderabad

5. The senior lnspector, o/o Director and Registrar of cooperative societies, Secunderabad.

6. The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, pegadapally, rep. by is Managing Committee, pegadapaily Viflage arid fr4"anOiT, O,iit. jjgt:i" ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS declari ng the proceedings in Rc. No.224 7 12024-c dated. 25-09-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent purportedry exercising the powers U/Sec.21 AA (1xb) of the co-operative societies Act as iilegar, arbitrary and consequentry set aside the same. lANO:1OF2 024 Petition under section 1 s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the Proceedings in Rc.No.224il2024-c dated. 25- og-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposar of the writ petition in the interests of justice. -1 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, at Secretdriat, Hyderabad

2. The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Telangana State at Hyderabad

3. The District Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District at Jagtial 4. The Asst. Registrar, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, at Golkonda, Hyderabad

5. The Senior lnspector, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Secunderabad.

6. The Pn'mary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Pegadapally, rep. by is Managing Committee, Pegadapally Village and Mandal, Dist. Jagtial AND ...PET|T|ONER/RESPONDENTS

1. Voruganti Rajashekar Rao, S/o: V Ac[yuth Rao, Aged 67 Years, Occu. Vice President of PACS, Pegadapally Fl/o Jagtial Town and District.

2. Ajmera Harilal, S/o: Thode Naik Aged 66 Years, Occu. Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Rl/o Edumotalapally Thanda , Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

3. Seegiri Swaroopa, Wo Madan , Aged 36 Years Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , R:/o Pegadapally Village And Mandal Jagtial District.

4. Gandra Praveen Rao, S/o Venkat Rao Aged 46 Years , Occu . Mana Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Rl/o Pegadapally Village Mandal Jagtial District. And

5. Sagi Gopal Rao, S/o Kantha Rao Aged 70 Years , Occu Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Rl/o Vengalaipet Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

6. Sailla Yellaiah, S/o Pochaiah , Aged 39 Years Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Rl/o Maddulapally Village .Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

7. Pentala Srinivas, S/o Narsaiah , Aged 45 Years Occu . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , R:/o Maddulapally Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

8. Musku Sumalatha, Wo Tirupathi Reddy Aged 36 Years Occu . Managing Commiftee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Rl/o Maddulapally Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

9. Vollala Srinivas, S/o Rajamallu Aged zt8 Years Occrj . Managing Committee Member of PACS, Pegadapally , Ri/o Bathkapalli Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District. l0.Maddela Sudheer, S/o Sathaiah Aged 45 Years Occu . Managing Commiftee Member of PACS, Pegadapally R/o Bathkapalli Village ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District.

11. Thota .Mallesham, S/o. Bloomaiatr Aged 49 years , Occu Manaoing Committee Member of pACS, pega?apaly , Ryo V;ng;tribdi -ViiLg" ,Pegadapally Mandal Jagtial District. " 't 2. surakanti sathi Reddy, .slg plrgtk1 Reddy Aged 42 y ears, occu . Managing -Viii,s " !U:i ffi : ffi :l1"J r?'r,[f 33t n 5 i g a o a'pa r"t, Ryo M; d d ;ip j r iv' - ...RESPON DENTS/PETITIONERS Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to Vacate the interim order dated 22.10.2024 in l.A.No.1 of 2024 in w.p.No.2g153 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition No.2g'rs3 of 2o24 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. SANTHOSH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL Gp OF ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER o THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.NOS. 26692,27330, 27742.27755 & 28153 0F 2024 /-J COMMON ORDER: In Writ Petition No.26692 of 2024, the petitioner society is challenging the proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated O9.O9.2O24 for conduct of inspection of the books of accounts of the petitioner society under Section 52 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice.

2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.27330, 27742, 27755 and 28153 of 2024 are all challenging the proceedings in Rc.Nos.2247 /2024- C, 225212O24-C, 2251 12O24-C artd 2247 12O24-C, dated

25.09.2024 respectively issued by respondent No.3 purportedly exercising the powers under Section 2iAA (i)(b) of the Act as illegal and arbitra5r and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. W.P.No.26692 of 2o24

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner in W.P.No.26692 of 2O24 is the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society set up in Pegadapalli Village of Jagtial District. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 vide 2 proceedings dated 09.09.2O24 has ordered an inspectiorL under Section 52(1) of the Act for inspection of the books of acc':unts of the petitioner society from the years 2Ol4-2O18 and 20 l'8-2O23 and the same is challenged in this Writ Petition.

4. The learn,:d counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said action of the respondent No.2 is not suo motu as mentioned in the impugned proceedings, but it is on the directions of the Government, q,h.ich in turn has issued the directions at the behest of the ruling party MLA. It is submitted that under Section 52 of the Act, inspection can be ordered both suo motu or at the request of one of the crr:ditor of the society and not even at the request of any member of the society, whereas in this case, the request was by the MLA of ttre ruling party who is neither a member or creditor of the society. 'I'herefore, according to the learned counse I for the petitioner, the a':tion of the respondent No.2 is biased and is at the behest of the third party and is therefore not sustainable.

5. This Court therefore, being satisfied about the prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, had granted interim suspension of the impugned n,rtice and the same has been extended frorrr time to

6. In the me anwhile, .the respondent No.3 has hled a counter affidavit on behrrlf of the respondents No.l to 5 and thereafter, the 3 respondent No.2 also has hled a separate counter affidavit justifying the issuance of the order under Section 52(1) of the Act. 7 . lrarned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Government Memo No.5958/Coop.II l1l2o2a, dated 05.09.2024 of the APC and Secretary to Government, Telangana, Hyderabad, which in turn has referred to the request to conduct Vigilance/enquiry on (6) PACS and (2) DCMS of Jagitial District which included the petitioner society. In the said Government Memo, there was a reference to the letter of the MLA, Dharmapuri, dated 02 -O9 .2024 . It is submitted that it is clear therefrom, that the inquiry ordered in the impugned order is not suo modt, but it is oniy on the direction of the MLA and therefore, it is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 52 of the Act to demonstrate that the inspection can be ordered by the registrar only of his own motion or on the application of the creditor of the societ5r and not otherwise. He placed reliance upon the foilowing judgments in support of the contentions: (U Dr.Premachandrau Keezhoth and Another Vs. Chancellor Kannur University and Othersl; l2l D.Ramesh Sinha Vs. Cadre Authority for Key rsonnel of Co-operative Central Banks/Apex Bank2; \ I 2023 SCC Online SC 1592 2 2oo1 scc online AP 1206 4 (3) Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others3; (4) M.Laxminarsimha Reddy Vs. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary Agriculture and Cooperation APC Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana and Others+; (5f Managing Committee of the Bureau of Economics and Statistics Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P.Gruhakalpa Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabads; (61 S.Ramu Vs. The A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Registrar and Others6. He therefore prayed to set aside the impugned notice

8. l,earned Special Government Pleader appearing for the office of the Advocate General, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that under Section 52 of the Act, the registrar has the power to suo mofit order inspection of books and he submitted that for taking the suo motu action, the source or information can be from any party and therefore, after the letter has been addressed by the concerned MLA, the Government has verified the same and has come to the conclusion that necessary action should be taken on thr: report ald thereafter the respondent No.2, after being satisfied that the inspection is required under Section 52 of the Act, has ordr:red so. 3 (1978) 1 scc 405 \4 w.A.No.622 of 2023. d. 0t.09.2023 :Ft*.A.No.1262 of 2OO.+, lt.Ol.O9 2OO4 6 w.p-No.17226 of2oo9 dt. 18 o2.2o14 ) i; 5

9. In support of his contentions that suo motu power under Section 52 of the Act can be exercised and the source or information for taking such action can be from any source

10. Learned Government pleader has submitted the copy of the MLA letter vide Letter No.823/TGSLA lcW lDMp/ Agl./2024, dated, O2.O9.2O24 and also copy of the Government Memo i.e., Memo No.5958/ Coop .II / I /2024, dated 05.O9.2O4. He thus relied upon the judgment of the Hontrle Supreme Court in the case of Araja Narasimha Rao Vs. District Co-operative Oflicer/Joint Register and OthersT in support of this contention.

11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the relevant material on record, this Court finds that the respondent No.2 claims to have exercised suo mofu powers for ordering the inspection of the books of accounts of the petitioner society under Section 52 of the Act. As submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, before exercising the power under Section 52 of the Act, the respondent No.2 has to be satisfied about the requirement to order the inspection and for before doing so, as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case cited supra, by the learned Government Pleader the source of information can be any person. However, for exercising the powers under Section 52 of t]ne z ueft)TaeTosooTzooz 6 Act, the officer has to be satished about the requirernent for inspection. The impugned order refers to ..financial irregularities committed by the respective PACS during the period 2014-1g and 20la-23" for r:oming to the conclusion about the rreed for inspection of the books of account. However, no instances of such financial irregu)arities are mentioned therein, but in the counter affidavit Frled by the respondents, it has been stated that the pACS have constructe,d a huge shopping complexes in a small viilage without conducting any cost benefit analysis ald therefore. there is misuse of funds of the society and therefore, the interim order has to be vacated and the respondents should be permitted to carry out the necessary inspections. t2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that is a statutory audit every year by the officers of the department and no qualification whatsoever has been pointed out by the authorities at any point of time in all these years. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the audit reports of a,ll the years filed along with the writ petitions to demonstrate that no irregularity has been committed and is noticed or pointed out by the audit parqr. According to him, the action of the resprondent No.2 in ordering inspection is therefore not justihed. 7

13. This Court finds that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not controverted by the respondent and the financial irregularities pointed out by the respondent No'2 is only in the counter afhdavit filed by him and not in the impugned orders

14. As held by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs' The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others (cited supral, wlrcn a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its ualiditg must be judged bg tLrc reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented bg fresh reasons in the shape of affidauit or othenpise. Therefore, this Court can only go into the reasons given by the authorities in the impugned order' The impugned order refers to the Government Memo for conduct of a detailed enquiry based on the records and random field verification and to enquire into the integrity of the financial transactions done in the six PACS and two DCMS braches of Jagitial District during the period from 2O14-18 ard 2Ol8-2O23' The specific instances of the financial irregularities are not pointed out in the said memo. The impugned proceedings also do not mention that the respondent No.2 has verified the information furnished by the Government to feel satisfied that there is a need \ I for inspection of books of the accounts of the concerned pACS. He seems to have acted on the directions of the Government, -which in turn had madr: the reference to the letter of the MLA. The fact that the accounts of the PACS are audited regularly, itself demonstrates th;t the registrar cannot interfere with the same without any reasonable cause. That reasonable cause has to be menl.ioned in the impugned order itself. As the required information is lacking in the impugned order dated 09.O9.2024, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be sustained. This Court is supported by the following decisions for coming to this conclusion: (1) In the case of Managing Committee of the Bureau of Economics and Statistics Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited (cited supral, it has held that " Learned counsel for the appellant, before the learned Single Judge, uith reference to Section 52 of the Act, urged that the said prouision is not appticable, in case, Responrlent No.2 had thought it appropriate to consider the representation dated:17.7.2oo4 submitted bg tlrc members and. residents of tlu, colong. Section 52 of tLe Act could haue been inuoked bg the second respondent on hi.s oun motion or. on the opplication of ct ,:reditor of th-e societg, and, Respondent No.2 would haue thereafier either inspected or directed inspection of the books of the Societg. Representation of the members of the societg or allegation mad.e therein taill not empower tLe Regi.strar to ord_er inspection. He al.so represented tha\ at ttte most, Section 51 of the Act tuould haue been inuoked. But, that utas not inuoked. The leanted Single Judge turned doun the reqtest without euen taking up the said question raised bg the petitioner." (2) In the case of S.Ramu (cited supral, it has held that,,the Diuision Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1262/ 2004 ltetd as und-er: l,eamed counsel for the appellant, before the learned Single Judge, uith reference to Section 52 of the Act, urged that the said_ 9 proui.sion is not applicable, in case, Respondent No.2 Lutd tlnught it appropiate to consider the representation dated:17.7.2004 submitted" bg the members and residents of the colony. Section 52 of the Act could haue been inuoked by the second respondent on his oun motion or on the application of a creditor of the societg, and, Respondent No.2 uould haue thereafter eitLrcr inspected or directed inspection of the books of tle Society. Representation of tLe ircmbers of tle societg or allegation made therein uill not empower the Registrar to order inspection. He also represented th-at, at tLe most, Section 51 of th.e Act would haue been inuoked. But, that was not inuoked. The learned Single Judge turned doun tLe request taithout euen taking up the said question raised bg tLe petitioner. When Appeal was taken up for consideration, ue haue asked leamed coun sel for the respondents to take appropiate instructions in the matter. Learned counsel for respondents, ightlg and franklg, concedes that in the giuen facts and ciranmstonces, orders could not haue been passed by Respondent No.2 under Section 52 of the Act directing inspection of tlrc books of tLe Society. We also find that on the giuen facts, order of the respondent No.2 is bad in lana, and, contrary to the letter and spiit of Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperatiue Societies Act, 1964. Consequently, we ollottt the appeal, and, set oside the impugned order utith liberty reserued to the respondents to deal uith the representation of members of the Societg in arcordance with laut..l[o cosfs". (3) In the case of D.Ramesh Sinha (cifed supral, it was held that "Hauing regard to ttLe aforementioned notings in tLe records, we haue no doubt uhatsoeuer thot the impugned orders of suspension haue been passed pursuant to and in furtherance of the directions issued bg the Stdte Gouernment. Power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee or place him under suspension emanates from a statute. While exercising such statutory pouer, tLe competent autLwritg, must ttterefore, applA its mind independentlg as to ruhether tle conditions precedent for exercisirLg such pou.rcr exist. It is notlt tite that if a statutory authoitg octs at the behest of some oth.er authoritg, hotueuer high he mag be, wln has no stahltory role to play in the matter, then such action/ or ang order passed by him" ruoutd be a nonest in tLte ege of lattt. It is also uell settled tfat uhite passing an order, if the statutory authoitg ignores the \ (-i releuant factorst or takes into consid-erations, factors not germane for the passing o.f the order, then such action or the order Jlotuing from such action, u.tould be uitiated- in lanu. Equaltg utell settled is tlLe pinciple that the stafutory authoritg tuhile exercising statutory pouters, must pose correct questions so a.s to applg correct legal pinciples and orriue at correct conclusions basing on the actuar and exact state of affairs, and if he fails to do so, tfu same would_ amount to misd irection in laut. Although d.eci.sions on this .score are galore, suffice it to refer to the decision of the apex Court in COMMR. OF POLICE. 1r. GORDHANDAS, and the d,ecision of the Court of Appeal, Ciuil Ltiuision, in SECRETARI OF STATE u. TAMESIDE, (1976) s Au ER 56s"

15. In viei.r, of the same, the impugned order in this writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. W.P.NOs.273 3() 27742 27755 &2at53 0F 2024

16. [n these v,rit petitions, the petitioners are the president and Members of ttLe Managing Committees respectively and the impugned order is passed under Section 2 1 AA(l)(b) of Act pursuant to thr: inspection report submitted by the Assistant Registrar under Section 52 of Act consequent to the proceedings dated O9.O9.2O24. Since the proceedings dated O9.O9.2 O24 have been set aside by order even dated in the above paragraphs, the impugned orders; in these writ petition are arso liable to be set aside. 11 L7. In view of the same, the impugned orders in these writ petitions are set aside and the writ petitions are accordingly allowed.

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD NT REGISTRAR ASSt CTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, at 2. The Director for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad Telangana State at Hyderabad

3. The Dlstrict Cooperative Officer, Jagtial District at Jagtial 4. The Asst. Regisirar, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, at

5. The Senior lnspector, O/o Director and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Golkonda, Hyderabad Secunderabad

6. One CC to Sri A. Santhosh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CC to The GP for Additional Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUTI

8. Two CD Cooies 's^-- ;J+; -s"{ . [e-. Y"*- *-^d }""v' AA,".-.-L Qs€u, T J ; - 6 BS -....F;____ 1 HF, S IA 16. q '5 o 2I,l l ij75 P : I t)FsperCH6O t HIGH COURT DATED:21 l01tZ02S COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION Nos. 26692,21930 21742,2775i and 28153 0F 2024 ALLOWNG THE ALL WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 6,sCt''e '--%ffd