The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 t 4 5 felugu cine workers cooperatrve Housing s.oglgtv, TBC 60g, Rep. by its Secretary, chtrapu.ri.c.otohy, rr/anikonda ligiiiVlhoF), ordoip5inrlnJul, ' - - -- Ranga Reddy District, Hydeirabad - 500 104: VirllabhaneniAnil Kumat S/o Nageshawar Rao, Aged about 43 years, or;c- President. Terugu cine wor"kers cooperiii've"rioriing s""iltv Ltb, clritrapuri cololy, fi4anikonda lisyr 1v ano e;, crnoip.i nrinoar,-Hang; Re'ddy District. Hyderabad -- 500 104 \- - -' z' .RESPONDENTS

Perttton under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayrng that in the circumstarces stated in the affidavrt filed therewith, the High court may be pleased trl issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of \Vrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2, 4 and 5 in removing the petitioners membershrp from the 4th respondent society by passing resolution dated 28 Og 2025 by issurng letter dated 25.1O.2025 of the Sth respondent informing as the petitioners Membership No.4670 was removed from the 4th reslondent society. without approval of the 2nd respondent, without any inquiry, proof and without following due process of law, pending directions passed by Honble '1igh Court in W.P.No.29424 of 2025, dated z6.Og.2o2s, as iilegal, arbitrary ancl violation of Clause 16 of Byelaws of the 4th Respondent, and Sec.23 of the Telant;ana Co- operative SocietiesAct, 1964 and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside the resolution passed by tire 4th respondent dated 28.o9.2025, and subsequent tetter dated 25'10.2025 cf 5th respondent, thereby to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Membership No.4670 of 4th respondent society in all respects, by including the petitioners name in the voters list of forthcoming elections, by allowing the petitioner to contest in forthcoming elections of 4th respondent Managing Conrmittee lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fih:d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the rr:solution passed by the 4th respondent dated 28.09.2025, and subsequent letler dated 25.10.2025 of 5th respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as f\4embership No.4670 of 4th respondent society in all respects, by including the petitioners name in the voters list of forthcoming electrons, by allowing the petitioner to contest in forthcomr.g elections of 4th respondent Managing committee, pending disposal of the above writ petition. counsel for the petitioners: sRl KADARU PRABHAKAR RAo counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FoR coopERATloN counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRl R.N. HEMENDRANATH REDD', REPRESENTING SRI M. PRATEEK REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.5:-__ N 34627 20 Between: l\laddineni Ramesh Babu, s/o. M. Kota.iah, lgug about 55 years, occ. Firm Director, R/o. Htc-3,2o,2, clilr?pyri Hiils,'nri,koriol" rigii-cJro]p? inrr Ranga Reddy District, plN - 500104. AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telangala., Department, Secretariat, Hy'der6bad. F.ep. by its.principal Secretary, Cooperative -.r-' vYv!v\

2. The Commissioner and.Registrar, Gruhakatpa, Nampaily, Hyd-erabaO _ SCiOOOi. .Coop^e_rgtlve Societies, 3rd Floor, - --- -

3. The District cooperative officer, R^a1ga Reddy District, 7th Floor, Gagan '$;t3ffi^]qtr#jt.:{s1f.?,1,#,["0!.ry,3,?ili:t.H:f,,,,1,ff,,,Ht:, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad _ 500 104:" 5. VallabhaneniAnil Kumar, S/o Naqeshawar Rao, Ager p,eriaeni,ttrriji,ii"i\i;rk"J#ogperativeH;rr"i"-d33.#t*:U;,r?i?,ri co I o n y, M a n i k oi rtl J as i r ry; n d pi Gfi d d;iM;iil ih;il; H;; i, 6ei,i"t, Hyderabad - 50O 104. ... ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of l\4andamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in tnaking t:fforts for issuing Election Notification to the 4th respondent managing committee for the forthcoming electrons for the period 2026 - 2030, without passing itny orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 04.11.2025 for rectification of voters list to include the petitioner's name and to delete the ineligible members, as rllegal, arbrtrary and against to the Byelaws of the 4th responderrt, and against to the provisions of Sec 25 and Rule 22 ofthe Telangana Co-operatrve Societres Act, 1964 and against to prrnciples of natural justice and violation o'Articles 14, 19 and 21 of ttre Constitution of lndia and consequenfly to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to issue Election Notification to the 4th respondenl t\4anaging Committee without conducting inqurry on the representation of the petitroner, dated 04.112025 for inclusion of petitioner's name and to detete the ineligible members from the voters list of 4th respondent for the forthcoming elections for'the period 2026 - 2030 forthwith. lA NO: 1 ot 2025 Petitic'n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of ttre petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to issue Election Notification to the 4th respondent Managing Ct:mmittee without conducting inquiry on the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.11-2025 for inclusion of petitioner's name and to detete the ineligible metnbers from the voters list of 4th respondent for the forthcoming elections for the period 2026 - 2030 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition. !A NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: fMaddineni Ramesh Babu, s/o. M. Kota.iah,4g"g about 55 years, occ. Film Director, R/o. Htc 3,-2p.2, cli(qprri Hiils,' nrin,t"no. Jagir, Gandipet (M), Ranga Reddy District, ptN S00104. ..PETITIONER - -- The state of rerarrgala, Leq by its principar secretary, cooperative Departmen t, Secreia riat, Hy'der6baO. The comm i ss ioner and .Reg is trar, co_o_pera tive societies, 3 rd Froor, Gruhakalpa, Nampalty, Hyd"eraOad _ SdOO0i. The Distrrct coooerative officer, Ranga Reddy District, zth Floor, Gagan vihar, Nampauy,' Hyoer-oiJ - sboiloi Telugu cine workers cooperative Housing society, TBC 60g, Rep. bv its S ec re ta rv, c h i t ra p u ri. c.o r o h y t'/ a n i k o n d a {i g i r rVi'.i o p l,"c r r^ o'} Ranga Reddy District. Hyderabad _ SOO f 04: ''-"-' ',' Vallabhaneni Anir Kumar, s/o Naqeshawar Rao, Aged about 43 years, occ. President. Teruorr cine work"rs dooourative Houffi Society Ltd, chitrapuri no pI tlno ipet Mandat',hinga Reddy Distriit, colonv, Man iko"nda L a g ii Hyderabad-500 104:.' iirLi"rr,rl -(va ""d AND 1 2 3 4 5 6' The commissioner for Co-operation and Register of Co-operative societies/ State co-operative Election Authority (scEA), Hyderabad, 3d Floor, Gruhakarpa Buirdings, opp. Gandhi Bavan, Nampaily, Hyderabal Fin sooot ...RESPONDENTS ..proposed respondent no.6 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 permit the petitioner to implead the Proposed Respondent No.6 as Respondent No'6 in W'P'No '34627 of 2025 as well as in atl tnterlocutory Applications in the interest of justice counselfor the petitioner: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAo counselfor the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FoR coopERATloN counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRl R.N. HEMENDRANATH REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI M. PRATEEK REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.S:--_ WRIT PETITION NO: 34764 OF ZO2S Between: J. Ravindranath ragore, S/o Madhusudha.n Rao, Age, 68 years, tvlembership No.2242, Row House No 1BZ, occ, production'ulSnager ,cr-litiipuri dio;; Manikcnda Jagir, Golkonda lvandar. Ranga Reddy Distrrct - 500 104 ... PETITIONER AND 1 I 3 4 5 State of relangana, Rep by its prrncipar Secretary Department of Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Registrar of. Cooperative Societies, for the State of Tetangana Gruhakalpa BuilJrngs, Hyderabad The D.istric!^c^ogoglative offtcer Deputy Regrstrar, Ranga Reddy District, s2, 2nd Floor, IDOC, Kongara Kalan, Ranga neOOy Districi The Telugu cine workers cooperative Hor{sing socrety Ltd.,, Rep By its Secretary, Paravada satyanarayana Dora s/olparsu (r.riu, Agu, 56 y"rrr, occ- Prod uction Ma.naqer c h itlqpul cotony, frrta nikonda Jag ir, cinoGi -- Manrlal, Ranga Reddy District-SO0104. Valla:haneni Anil Kumar, President The Telugu cine workers cooperative Igy:'ng Society, SJo.Nlgeswra Rao, Age, +f years, Offrce at TBC'b08,-'- chrtrzrpuri Head office, chitrapuri colony, Hydbrabad -500104. ...RESPONDENTS Petiticn under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancers stated in the affidavit frled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mendamus declaring the inactron of the Respondent No.2/Registrar of Cooperative Societies in exercise of his Jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act,'1964 in considering the application dated - 11-2025 made by the Petitioner as arbitrary illegal, rnatafide, high handed, capricious, virllate the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 ard 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and the statutory provisions of Telangana Cooperative Societies Act,1964 apart from being in violation of th,-' Principles of Natural Justice and fair play, and consequenly declare the Lr.dated 25t1)i2025 and 06/11t2O25issued by the 4th Responount Society terminerting the membership of the petitioner from the 4th Respondent Society as null and void by further directing the respondent No.4 not to interfere into the rights of the Petitioner as member of the Society and also to restore their names in the vorers list of the 4th Respondent society with forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 . 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 grant interim suspension of the Lr.dated 25t1012025 and au11l2oz5 issued by the 4th Respondent Society terminating the petitroners rnembership from the 4th Respondent society by directing the 4lh Respondent Society to restore the Petitioner's nanre rn the voters list of the Society forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. IA 20F 202s Between: The Telugu cine workers coogerativg Holsing Society Ltd.,, Rep By its Secre-lary, p ar av ada Sa tya n a ra y ana Dora S/o.-p occ- pioiiuction nlranrg"?, 6;'trqgq;r crrr"v,irrrri[Xff]:ili: A??rt%vears, . Mandal, Ranga Reddybistrict_S0b10i- - '''r!'sr AND .... PET|TIoNER/RESPoNDENTS/ 1. J. Ravindranath. Tagore,. S/o. Mldhusudhan Rao,.Age, 6g years, Membership No2242, Row Hou-se No raz occ,-p.ortiit1"riGg", ,cili;ilI,,.i corony, Manikonda Jagir, Gorkonda Mandar,'nrrg, C"oov oisliiii r Eci6'T6; ...RESPONDENTSPETITIONER Buildings, Hyderbbad Cooperation, Secretaridt euitoingr. HiJ"r;b;d.'-',

2. state of rerangana, Rgp, by its principar Secretary Department of 3' [e.gistrar of cooperative Societies, for the state of Telangana Gruhakalpa 4. The District cooperative officer Deputy Rggistrar, R.a.nga Reddy District, 52, 5' vallabhaneniAnilKumar, President rhe Telugu cine workers cooperative Housing society, sJo.rqageswiiRl;, &'42';#;, office at recbbs, rrv (ru chitrapuri Head office, ch itrapuri coron"v, Hv?6iJor'o:4ffi 0;l 2nd Floor, IDOC., Kongara Katan, nang, nEOOy-iiirtrl"t. .. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P. .. Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the order dt. 14.11.202s in wp No. 34764 of 202s. counsel for the Petitioner: sRl y. sRlNlvAsA MURTHY, RPRESENTTNG SMT. UMA DEVI NAMA counset for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FoR coopERATloN counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRl R.N. HEMENDRANATH REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI M. PRATEEK REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.5:___ WRIT PETITION 3476s oF 202s Between: Dr- Kasturi srinivas, so. pocha*al.ly,^ agg 1o _years, occ Firrn Director, chitrapuri societv{\4embership No 5790, ftto uc re_ro?,_chrtrapuri cotony, -nrng, Mar ikonda Jagir,' Gandipet naJnoar it"oJv oiririct-500104 AND 1 Stater of Tela CooP,sr21r66, ngana,. n9g !V.i!9 Principat Secretary Department of Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER Buildings, Hyderabad 2nd Ftoor, tDOC, Kongara Katan, nbng'a nltOybistrict 2 Regis;trar of Cooperative Societies,, for the State of Telangana Gruhakalpa 3 The ftistrict cooperative officer, Deputy [egistrar, Ranga Reddy District, s2, 4 The T:lugrlone tA{or[er.s cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,, Rep Bv its secrei a ry, pa ravada Satyan a r'aya na Dora Slo" p-*., h, * ril,,{6u"'s6' y"r rr, o cc. F' rod u ctio n J\I a.na g_ei, c n i t ri p, n c o t J n / N/ r n i k;; ; ; i ;; ; :'ii r o, p"" t Mandz l, Ranga Reddy-District-SO01 04.

5. vallabhaneni AnilKumar,, president The Telugu cine workers cooperative H o us i n g societv,^9/o. N lgeswra Rao, age . qi i e a;;, o rti#' ;i' i#iio; : chitrapuri Heaci office, c--hitrapuri coton"y, Ht,6;b;d -500104. ...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 isstte an order or direction or a writ more particularty one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.2/Registrar of Cooperative S'lcieties in exercise of his Jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act,1964 in considering the application dated 3- 11-2025 made by the petitioner as arbitrary , illegal, malafide, high handed, capricious, violitte the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and the statutory provisions of Telangana Cooperative Societies Act,1g64 apart from being in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play , and consequentty declare the Lr .dated 25-10-2025 and 0611112025 issued by the 4th Respondent society terminating the membership of the petitioner from the 4th Respondent society as null and void by further directing the respondent No.4 not to interfere into the rights of the Petitioner as member of the socrety and also to restore their names in the voters rist of the 4th Respondent Society with forthwith. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 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 grant interim suspension of the Lr.dated 2511012025 and 06/1 1t2o25issued by the 4th Respondent Society terminating the petrtroner's rnembership from the 4th Respondent society by drrecting the 4th Respondent Society to restore the Petitioner's name in the voters list of the socrety forthwrth, pending disposat of the above Writ Petition and pass lA NO: 2 OF Between: The Teruou one workers cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,, Rep By its secreta ryI paravaoi sl,vj'" *; t, d b;;; si;: pr,.u Rrr-rit : xu.. 56 years, fi fi .:', :fl H[T#eli'Srtlg3iTd i; "'ii x; fi ;il ;i;il, GBI o, p - - -' i " AND 1- Dr. Kasturi srinivas, so. pochamailu, Age. 46 years, "'d" chikapuri societv Membershit Manikonda Jagir,'Ganoipet N,ild,r, R;rg; iiltoVb"trict .5001 04.

9._. Firm Director, 1ig _rs-iqzcnitiriuri corony, f'r9 s_;rb .... PETIT|ONER/ RESPONDENT/ No.4 ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER --", Secretariat Buildings, Hyde;ab;d ' 2' state of retangala, RgP by its Principat Secretary Department of cooperation, 3' Registrar of cooperative societies,, for the state of relangana Gruhak.lpa ' ' 4' The District cooperative orficer Ds|:lrtg:ll{, Tgrg, Reddy Districr, s2, 5' vallabhaneniAnir K.umar,, president rhe Terugu cine workers cooperative Housing society, s/d trrqqeswrairo,. Age rz-iiai",'oni"" at TBC 608. c h i tra p u ri Head ofrice, cllt?i p u ii'a;i ;i; H;iJri'o'i o _ s 0 o 1 04 2nd Floor, IDOC, Kongara k;h;, nang,a ne"dovbi.tri.t . IN W.P. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDETS IN W.P Pr:tition under Section 151 CPC praylng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Order dt 14 11 .2025 in Wp No. 34765 of 2O2S counsel for the Petitioner: sRl Y. sRlNlvASA MURTHY, RpRESENTING SMT. UMA DEVI NAMA counsel 1'or the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FoR coopERATtoN counsel lor the Respondent No.4: sRr R.N. HEMENDRANATH REDDY REPRESENTING SRI M. PRATEEX dCOOY, Counsel frrr the Respondent No.S:--- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGTI COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITTO Nos.29424. 34351. 34627. 34764 and 34765 of 2025 DATE: 19.12.2025 WRIT PETITION No.29424 of 2025 Between: J. Ravindranath Tagore and two others AND State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others. WRIT PBTITION No.34351 of 2025 Between: Maddineni Ramesh Babu AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. ...Petitioners Respondents Petitioner Respondents I j i i i ! i i ! I ! I I I I 2 WRIT PETITION No.34627 of 2025 Between: Maddineni Ramesh Babu AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others WRIT PETITION No.34764 of 2025 Between: J. Ravindranath Tagore AND State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabal and four others. WRIT PETITION No.34765 of 2025 Between: Dr. Kasturi Srinivas AND State of Tetangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary Departmenl of Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and four others. TMD,J W.P. Nos.29424, 3 435 l, 34627, 34764 &34765 of 2025 ..Petitioner Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents .Petitioner Respondents TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 , 34351, 14627 , 34764 &34765 of2025 3 COMMON ORDER W.P.No.29424 of 2025 is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in taking action on the petitioners' complaint submitted on 28.08.2025 against respondent No.4-society as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and as violative of Cooperative Societies Act and consequently to direct respondent No.2 to take appropriate action with immediate effect against the Managing Committee of respondent No.4-soceity and consequently to stay the conduct of the General Body Meeting of respondent No.4-society scheduled to be held on 28.09.2025 or any other subsequent date, pending proceedings of respondent No.2 vide RC.No.256912025-HR2, dated 20.08.2025 under Section 34(lXb) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, "the Act") or in the alternative direct respondent No.2 to appoint a Special Officer to conduct the proposed General Body Meeting of respondent No.4-society scheduled on

28.09.2025 and to pass such other order or orders. TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,3435l ,34627 , 34164 &34765 o12025 4

2. Leamed counsel for the petitioners has drawn the specific attention of this Oourt to the petitioners' complaint dated 28.08.2025 submitted to respond()nt No.2 in respect of show cause notice dated 19.08.2025 received from respondent No.4-society proposing the expulsion of the petitioners from the society under Section 23 of the Act. It was submitted that the issue of disqualification of the society Governing Body was already lrending before this Court in W.P.No.9335 of 2025 and in W.P.No.i'642 of 2024 and therefore, during the pendency of such writ petitions, the respondents ought not to have issued the show cause notices to the pe'titioners and others, particularly when Agenda No.8 of the General Eiody Meeting held on 04.08.2024 was subject to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.15677 of 2024. Therefore, the petitioners requested the Commissioner to take action under Section 34 of the Act, to supersede the existing governing body of the society, constitute a PIC committee and seize the files, accounts/activities of the society without funher delay When no action was taken on their complaint dated 28.08.2025 and respondent No.4 society was proceeding to hold the General Body Meeting on28.09.2025 with an agenda to expel the petitioners and others TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 343 5 1, 34627, 347& &34765 of2025 5 from the membership of the society, the petitioners prefened this Writ Petition. At the time of admission of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to the agenda of the General Body Meeting to be held on 28.09.2025, wherein item No.6 was "to discuss about the removal of members who were obstructing the work of the society, its registrations and causing financial loss to the society and to terminate their membership"; and item No.9 was pertaining to "discussion of 2025-29 elections and to take a decision thereon".

3. This Court, being prima facie satisfied, directed that any resolution in respect of Item No.6 of the agenda shall be subject to the outcome of this Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in response to the show cause notice dated 19.08.2025, the petitioners and others submitted their explanations/representations, but holding that petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.29424 of 2025 has not submitted his explanation and the explanations submitted by the other members were not satisfactory, a resolution was proposed to be passed by the General Body removing the TMD,J W. P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 34627, 34764 &34765 ot2025 6 petitioners from the membership of the society, Thereafter, the respondents have proceeded to conduct the General Body meeting on

28.09.2025 and in respect of itern No.6 of the agenda, passed a resolution removing the members f,rom the membership of the society invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, and a communication dated

25.10.2025 was issued to the said effect. Challenging the termination of the membership and seeking immediate restoration, the petitioners and others filed applications under Section 61 of the Act before respondent No.2 on r13.11.2025 and challenging the inaction on the said application, W.P.Nos.34351, 34764, and 34765 of 2025 have been fiIed. Seeking a declaration that the efforts of respondents No.2 and 3 in W.P.No.34627 of 2025 for issuing Election Notification to respondent No.4 Managing Committe,: for the forthcoming period 2026-2030 without passing orders on the representation of the petitioners on 04.1 I .2025 for rectification of voters list by including the petitioner's names and deleting the ineligible voters, as illegal and arbitrary, W.P.No.34627 of 2025 has been filed. TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 74627, 34764 &34765 of2025 7

5. Since the issues were interlinked, all the writ petitions were clubbed with W.P.No.29424 of 2025 and the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common and consolidated order

6. Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Uma Devi Nama, learned counsel for the petitioners W.P.Nos.29424, 34764 and 34765 of 2025 and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3435l and 34627 of 2025, Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Prateek Reddy, learned counsel for Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for the official respondents, appeared and advanced their respective arguments.

6.1 Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Uma Devi Nama, learned counsel for the petitioners W.P.Nos.29424, 34764 and 34765 of 2025, submitted that the Managing Committee of respondent No.4-society has committed various irregularities and illegalities and therefore, several representations were TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 , 34351 , 34627 , 34764 &34765 of 2025 8 made to the Registrar, consequent to which an enquify under Section 51 of the r\ct was conducted, and a repoft dated 09.10.2023 was submitted by the Assistant Registrar, DCO, Shamshabad, bringing out various irregula:ities committed by the society and the action under the same is awaited and in the meantime, in order to prevent the petitioners from raising issues or taking action against the Managing Committee, responde:nt No.4-society issued show cause notices dated 19.08.2025 and

16.09.2025 and convened a General Body Meeting solely with the agenda to remove the petitioners from the membership of the society on the ground of obstruction of the work of the society, its registrations and causing financial loss to the society. [t is submitted that though all the petitioners have submitted their explanations for the sholv cause notices, the same 'ryere not considered and the General Body of the society passed a resoluticrn terminating the membership and that the said resolution was forwarded to the authority for approval, but the Registrar has not yet given the approval. It is submitted that the show cause notices issued to all the petit.ioners only make general allegations that they have indulged in the activity of obstruction and caused financial loss and also tarnished the TMD'J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 34627, 34764 &34765 of2025 9 image of the society. It is also alleged that the petitioners have approached the Court and authorities by making several representations making false allegations. It is submitted that only in the case of petitioner No.l, an additional allegation is made that he has taken active role in demolition of six additional row houses constructed by the society and thus caused financial loss to the society. He submitted that the show cause notices do not refer to any specific acts of obstructions by the petitioners nor the quantum of the financial loss said to have been caused by the petitioners. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the show cause notices are exfacie lllegal and unsustainable.

6.2 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has funher drawn the attention of this Court to the representations submitted by the petitioners to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated I0.II.2025 and

04.11 .2025 respectively, wherein the relevant facts and circumstances leading to the statutory enquiry under Section 5l of the Act and the findings therein have been brought out. In the said representation, the earlier acts of misconduct, misappropriation and irregularities committed by the Managing Committee have been brought out. It is submitted that, TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 34351, 34627, 34764 &34765 of 2025 10 ,harboring a personal grudge against the petitioners for having exposed these irregularities, the membership of the petitioners has been terminated and a letter dated 25.10.2025 has been issued informing about the terminat ion of their membership in the society. [t is submitted that only the Reglstrar, under Section 6l of the Act, has the power to decide the disputes arising between a member and the society or its Managing Commitlee touching upon the constitution, management or business of the society. Therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioners falls within the ambit ol' Section 6l of the Act and therefore, it was prayed that appropriate direction be given to respondent No.2 to take action on the applicatic,ns filed under Section 61 of the Act, to set aside the termination of membe:rship and to direct restoration of the membership of the society and also to take action against for supersession of the Managing Committe,-- under Section 34(1) of the Act and to take consequential action as deemed fit under the Act.

6.3 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order of this Court dated 25.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.7642 of 2024, which was filed seeking a direction to the TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 343 5 L, 34627, 34764 &34765 of2025 1L official respondents to take action on the report of the Assistant RegistrarlField Officer, Shamshabad Circle, dated 09.10.2023, on the several irregularities committed by the present Managing Committee wherein, this Court had directed respondent No.2 therein to examine the said report dated 09.10.2023 submitted by the Assistant Registrar/Field Officer, Shamshabad Circle of the respondent No.3 and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all interested persons and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

6.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has funher drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 08.04.2025 in W.P.No.9335 of 2025, wherein the memo dated 04.02.2025 observing that a Five Men Committee will be looking into report dated 09.I0.2023 was set aside and the Registrar was directed to issue fresh proceedings pursuant to the report dated 09.10.2023 and to take action in accordance with law.

6.5 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that a General Body Meeting was scheduled on 04.08.2a24 and the petitioner TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 34627, 14764 &34765 of 2025

1.2 has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15677 of 2024 and vide order dated 30.07.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2024, this Court had permitted respond(:nt No.2 therein to proceed with the General Body Meeting of respondent No.4-society scheduled on 04.08.2024 or any other subsequent day/days, under the supervision of the officer/representative nominated by the Distr ct Cooperative Officer. [t was also observed that any decision taken in the said General Body Meeting shall not be given effect to pending lurther orders. It is submitted that the said writ petition is still pending clecision by this Court and that the present Writ Petitions have been filecl challenging the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in taking a ,lecision on the petitioners' representations/applications filed under Section 6l of the Act. He further submitted that the quorum required fcrr expulsion of members under Section 23 of the Act was also not present and hence, for this reason also, the resolution is not valid. He also submitted that Section 21, of the Act deals with the conditions for disqualification for membership of society and Rule 20 (2) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short, "TCS Rules) required the Regisffar's approval for removal of a member who is TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 34627, 34764 &34765 of2025

1.3 disqualified. Therefore, according to him, the said Rule would be applicable to the termination of membership under Section 23 of the Act as well.

6.6 In addition to the above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3435 | of 2025 and 34627 of 2025 submitted that respondent No.4-society has displayed the voter list on 10.1 I .2025 calling for objections to the same, and that the list contained the names of the father, wife and mother of respondent No.5, though such membership is not permitted and it also contained the names of some of the members who have expired. He has also drawn the attention to the objections raised by him to the voters list vide representation dated 04.1I .2025 as well as his representation dated 06.10.2025 on the illegal termination of the petitioners membership.

7. Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Prateek Reddy, learned counsel for Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. He submitted that a Writ Petition is TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 t, 34627, 347U & 34765 of2025

1.4 not rraintainable against the socieJy as the society is not an insffunLentality of the State. He further submitted that there is an efflcacious and alternative remedy available under Section 76 the Act against the order under Section 23 of the Act and therefore, the petitioners ought to have availed the same and this Writ Petition is not maintainable. He subnritted that in all the cases, the concerned members have submitted their explanations and have also appeared before the General Body, except firr the petitioner in w.P.No.34765 of 202s. He further submitted that the 'General Body of the society which is supreme, after considering the contt:ntions of the petitioners herein, has decided to terminate their membership and accordingly, resolution was passed and the said resolutiott was also communicated to the expelled members and therefore, due procr:dure was followed and there is no cause for interference at this stage.

7.1 Learned Senior Counsel for respondent-society retied upon the provisions of Section 23 of the Act for expulsion of members and submitted that any order under Section 23 of the Act is appealable under Section 76 of the Act and was not amenable to Section 61 of the Act and TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 34627, 347@ &34765 of2025 15 therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that under sub-section (6) of Section 76 of the Act, The Tribunal has the power to pass interim orders pending disposal of the appeal, and in many cases, the Tribunal has passed interim orders to protect the interest of the appellants before it and therefore there being an efficacious alternative remedy, this Writ Petition is not maintainable.

7.2 Learned Senior Counsel for respondent-society further referred to the representation of the petitioners allegedly submitted to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act and submitted that petitioners did not raise any objection with regard to termination of membership in the said applications but have raised various other issues seeking supersession of the Managing Committee and therefore, they are not against termination of membership of the petitioners. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Katragaddu Kishore v. the State of Telangana and others I in support of his contentions that a Writ Petition is not maintainable against this society. | 2o2z r ALD r59 TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 343 5 l, 34627, 34764 &34'765 of 2025 16

8. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation has forwarded the copy of' the written instructions received from the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies and submitted that the representation of the petitioner No.l in W.P.N0.29424 of 2025 dated 08.11.2025 was entrusteci to District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District, for necessan/ actron It is further stated that the respondents No.2 has no statutory jurisdiction to involve regarding termination of membership of the petitioners under Sections 2L and 23 of the Act. He further submitted that the impugned orders are appealable under Section 76 of the Act before the Cooperative Tribunal

9. [n reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land r;r'as allotted to respondent No.4-society by the Government at a very nominal price and therefore, the Government's contribution is significant and further that the involvement of the Government is also evident frc'm the fact that a Five Men Committee, consisting of three Government officials and two persons from film industry was constituted for allotment of, units to members of the film industry and regisffations have to be t:ffected sfrictly in accordance with the allotments made by the TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,34351, 34627 , 34764 &34765 of 2025 17 Five Men Committee only. Therefore, according to him, the society is under the supervisory control of the Government, and thus, a Writ Petition against the society is maintainable.

9.1 As regards, the orders under Section 23 of the Act, learned Senior Counsel submitted that none of the conditions specified under Section 21 of the Act for disqualification of the members are attracted in this case and even as per Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 20 of TCS Rules, the Registrar's approval is necessary for disqualifying a person and that the said Rule is applicable to expulsion of a member under Section 23 of the Act as well. It is submitted that in the present case, the Registrar has not yet given such approval and therefore, the petitioners representations have to be considered by the Registrar under Section 23 of the Act read with Rule 20 of the TCS Rules as well and that further, he submitted that the provisions of Section 23 of the Act can be invoked only when the concerned member has caused financial loss to the society, and as per the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Registrar, Shamshabad, the loss was caused not by the members of the society but was caused by the acts of the Managing Committee of the society. TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 , 34351, 34627 , 34764 & 34765 of2025 18

9.2 Learned Senior Counsel also referred to Rules 20 of the TCS Rules to demc,nstrate that the termination orders have to be confirmed by the Registrar to become effective. It is submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of I(atragadda Kishore (cited supra) is not applicable to the prese'nt case as it is distinguishable on facts.

9.3 As regards the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for respondent-society that the order under Section 23 of the Act is an appealable before the Cooperative Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act, the learnt:d Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that unless the' Registrar decides that the dispute under Section 61 of the Act, the petitioners cannot approach the Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act. He submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel lbr the respondent-society are distinguishabte on facts and therefore, t.hey are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

10. Sri lfudaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in w.P.Nos.3,1351 and 34627 of 2025 adopted the arguments advanced by the learne:d Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,34351 , 34627 , 34764 &34765 of2025 19 W.P.Nos.29424,34764 arld34765 of 2025 and submitted that except for variations in the factual matrix, the issues and the legal points involved in all of these writ petitions are similar. ll. Having regard to rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the respondent-society intended to hold a General Body Meeting on28.09.2025 and item No.6 of the agenda pertained to removal of certain members. This Court has observed that any resolution passed on the said item of the agenda would be subject to the result of W.P.No.29424 of 2025. Therefore, the resolution passed by the General Body terminating the membership of the petitioners herein has not attained finality.

12. The first and foremost issue to be decided in this Writ Petition is its maintainability. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-society has placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Katragadda Kishore (cited supra). In the said case against the respondent No.4 herein, the Court has held as under: "26. Chapter-Vlil of the Act, 1964 deals with settlement of disputes. Section 6l is very elaborate and encompasses all TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 , 3435l,34627 , 34764 &34765 of2025 20 aspects of disputes concerning the affairs of a Socie_ty. It is very vide and covers the grievance ventilated by the petitioners tn tirc w'rit petittons. The disputes as sought to be urged herein can be placed before the Registrar for his consideration and the decisiort. Further, qs per sub-section (2) wide power is r,ested in the Registrar to resolve any controversy, touching upon constittttion, management or business of the Society and his d,zcision is final. on such reference, according to section 62, it is competent for the Registrar to elect to decide the dispute hmself or transfer for disposal to any person, who is vested with pow'€r by the Government or refer the dispttte to Arbitrator'. The Act, 1964 is comprehensive and takes care of all aspects concerning the Societies.

27. If petitioner in Vtr.P.No.20367 of 2021 has any grievance on the Executive committee taking a decision to tet'minate his membership, or the General Body accepts the prtposal placed before it b.v- the existing Executive Committee to terminate the nrcmbership of the petitioner, enough salceguards are provtded to seek redress to the petitioner under Sectiott 6l of the Act. when statutorily engrafted redressal mechanism is provided on wide spectrum of issues concerning a so,:ieQt, the court should not entertain the writ petition and dectde upon issues concerning the affairs of the Society including a possible termination of membershtp even before TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 34351, 34627, 347@ &34765 of 2025

21. decisions are made by the General Body of the Society, more so, when Section 3l-A vests wide powers in the Exeutive Committee and far wider powers in the General Body under Section 30.

28. Any decision by this Court on the aspects urged herein would only undermine the statutory scheme. The writ Court should not entertain the writ petitions and choke enforcement of the statutory sclteme. "

13. However, this Court finds that in the said case, the challenge was to the convening of General Body Meeting and the agenda included for removal of members. However, in this case, the challenge is to the inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 in taking action under Section 61 of the Act. Therefore, this decision is distinguishable on facts. The preliminary objection is accordingly rejected.

14. As regards the contention of the petitioners that their representations under Section 6l to the Registrar have not been disposed ol this Court finds that the representation referred to in W.P.No.29424 of 2025 pnmarily relate to the alleged illegalities/inegularities committed by the Managing Committee. The representations refers only to the show cause notice as the General Body Meeting was not held till such date and TMD,J W. P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 3462'1, 34764 &34765 of2025 22 therefo:e, there cannot be any specific relief against termination of membership. Further, disqualification would not come into effect unless and until it is approved by the Regisrrar under Rule 20 of the TCS Rutes. For the sake of proper appreciation of the case and ready reference, the relevanl provisions of the Act are reproduced hereunder:- " 2 I. Disqualiftcation for membership of society (tl)A person shall be disqualified for betng admttted as, and for being a member, ,f he - (a) is an applicant to be adjudicated an insolvent or is an of society insolvent; or (aa) is not eligiblefor membership under section l9 (U has been sentenced for any offence involving moral ttt,"pitude, such sentence not having been reversed and a period o/ three years has not elapsed from the date of the expiration of the sentence; or (c1 is a paid employee of the society or of its financing bank or of any society for which it is the financtng bank; or (d) has been expelled froru membership under this Act and a period of one year has not elapsed from the date of such expulsion; or (e) is carrying on business of such kind as the Registrar may, by general or special order, declare to be a business which is in <:onflict wtth the objects or interests of the society; or TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 1, 34627, 34764 &34765 of 2025 23 (/) at such member fails to transact such minimum business or utilise mintmum services or faciltties in a year as may be specified in the bye-laws; or in respect of Housing societies if the member sold out the plot alloted to htm/her; or (g) fails to attend two consecutive annual general body meetings withofi leave of absence; or (h) fails to give information relevant to him to the soctety as specified in the bye-laws; (i) is/was a director or member of the Managing Committee of the society which fails to handover all the records of the society to the sltccessor Managing Committee."

15. It is evident that the petitioners do not satisfy any of these conditions.

16. Section 23 of the Act provides as under: "(l) Any member who has acted adversely to the interests of the society may be expelled upon a resolrrtion of the general body passed its meeting by the votes of not less than where by majority of the total membership of the society is present and two-thirds of the members of the society present and voting. (2) No member shall be expelled under sub-section (l)unless,- (a) member caused loss offinancial to the society. (b) member is involved in impersonation, forgery or any other Criminal Activity against the society. (c) Provtded that the member shall be gtven an opportuntty of making his/her representation to the Managing Committee. TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 1, 34627, 34764 &34765 of2025 24 (.1) A copy of resolution expelling the member shalt be cotlunutticated to the member wtthin 30 days Lmder copy to the Registrar. From a reading of Clause (c) above, it is seen that principles of natural justice are embedded herein by providing that the member shall be given an opportunity of making his or her representation to the Managing Committee.

17. Rule 20 of the TCS Rules reads as under: "20. Removal of a member of a Society who is disqualiJied:- (l) f any person, who is adruitted as a mentber of a sociefit becomes disqualified under Section 2 t to continue as such, the Registrar mdy, on his own motion or on a ,"epresentation made to hiru by any ntember of the society or ,'ts Jinancing bank by an order in writing, declare that he :thall cease to be a mentber of the sociee Jrom the date of such disqualifi.catio n. (2) Before passing an order under sub-rule (t) the Registrar shall give such person an opportunity to state his objection, tj" any,for the proposed action and If the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given opporhmity to be heard. The Registrarts decision shall be final and bindtng on the society and tt shall not be questioned in any court. TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,34351 , 34627 , 34764 &34765 of 2025 25

18. Thus, in addition to the opportunity of hearing to be given by the society, the Registrar also has to give an opportunity of hearing to the members against whom action is sought to be taken.

19. Admittedly, the Registrar has not passed any order of disqualification under Section 2l of the Act or order of expulsion under Section 23 of the Act and has not approved the termination of the members. The orders of disqualification of members under Section 2l of the Act and also expulsion of members under Section 23 of the Act can come into effect only after a resolution is passed by the General Body of the Society after giving an opporfunity of hearing to such of the members and after communication of the resolution to the concerned member and after its approval by the Registrar. Section 23 of the Act also prescribes that the expulsion shall be upon a resolution of the General Body passed in its meeting by the votes of not less than whereby majority of the total membership of the society is present and two thirds of the members of the society are present and voting. Sub-section (3) also prescribes that a copy of the resolution expelling the member shall be communicated to the members within 30 days under copy to the Regisffar. Therefore, it is TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,34351 , 34627 , 34764 &34765 of2025 26 apparellt that the actions of disqualification and expulsion being primitive in natur'e, the Registrar is bestowed with the obligation to veri$r whether the conditions for such action are satisfied and he has to give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned members before confirming the actions. Further, such an opportunity must be an informed opportunity i-e., the specific allegations and relevant material must be supplied to the person. In the present case, the said procedure has not been followed. The show cause notices cannot be said to have been validly issued and the termination orders are not sustainable. Rule 20 of the TCS Rules is applicable to both the circumstances. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of terminations of the petitioners have come into effect. As rightly pointed rlut by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the order under Se;tion 23 of the Act would be appealable under Section 76 of the Act only after the Registrar passes an order of approval of the resolutions.

20. Th,: petitioners have submitted representations to the Registrar prior to any decision being taken by the Registrar. Though the representations do not refer to the termination order, they refer to the show-caur;e notices, the reply submitted by the petitioners and the TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 343 51, 34627, 34764 &34765 of 2025 27 society's letters of removal dated 25.10.2025 and 06.11.2025. Therefore, the representations have to be considered by the Registrar before taking a decision under Section 23 of the Act read with Rule 20 of the TCS Rules. Notwithstanding the representation of the petitioners, the Registrar also has to issue notices to the petitioners calling for this explanation before taking any decision. For the inaction on the part of the Registrar in acting on the representations of the petitioners, these Writ Petitions are maintainable.

21. The counsel for both the parties have placed reliance upon various decisions in support of their contentions.

22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of AP High Court (as it then was) in the case of M.A.RVS. Sai Babu vs Commissioner and Register of Cooperative Societies, Government of A.P.2, in support of his contention that this Court can interfere with the election process if there are any irregularities in the electoral list-either wrongful admission of members or wrongful deletion of valid members as such issues do not fall under Rule 22-AAA ' tggg (z) ALD 319 (DB) TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,34351 , 34627 , 34764 &34765 of2025 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 but are covered either ty Section 32(7)(a) of the Act before commencement of the election process or sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 61 of the Act, after the election process starts. It is submitted that since the election process has not yet commenced, this Court can examine the matters about the memberr; of the society, and also their ability to participate in the elections

23. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision o1'the Hc,n'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Muharashtra ond others,3 in support of his contention that in an approlrriate case, a Writ Petition is maintainable against the State or an instrumentality of the State even where the dispute arises out of a contracturrl obligation. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed :hat merely because disputed questions of fact arise it cannot be a ground':o refuse to entertain a Writ Petition in all cases as a matter of rule and that a Writ Petition involving consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme court 3 1zozo1 9 scc 356 TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,3435l, 34627 , 34764 &34765 of 2025 29 has held that the High Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus but are duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or the public authority fails to exercise, or wrongly exercises, discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government, or has exercised such discretion malafide, or on irrelevant considerations. Therefore, according to him, in order to prevent injustice to parties, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court may pass orders or give directions which the Government or the public authority ought to have passed had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.

24. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-society, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh (as it then was), in the case of Nischint Constructions Pvt Ltd. v. Khader Nawaz Khan4, in support of his contention that the petitioners are not supposed to make bald allegations against any person, u zo2o 4 ALT 426 TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 34627, 34764 &3476s of2025 30 without relevant evidence. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supremt: Court in the case of Bharat Petroleam Corporation Limited v. N.R.Vairamanis, for the proposition that while considering the order of precederLts on the issue, factual and circumstantial similarity must be taken into consideration. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Surthi venkatesh v. Election Committee, Sri. Somuvantsha Shasatrarjana Kshotriya Mutually-Aided Cooperative Thrtft Society Ltd 6, for the proposition that this Writ Petition is not maintainable against a society. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'trle Supreme Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan swami v. state of MaharashfiaT, for the proposition that the election process includes preparation of voter list till declaration of the result and therefore, election cannot be interfered with at any of the stages.

25. This Court finds that the main grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petitir)n relates to the action taken by respondent-society to terminate their memtrership on the ground that they are obstructing the activities of the society and have caused financial loss to the society. The petitioners ' Zoo+ 111 Supre me I 26 '1zozt1 3 ALD lo5 '1zoot; 8 scc .ro9 TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,3435l ,34627 , 34764 &34765 of 2025 3L have challenged the said action at the earliest point of time i.e., on issuance of the agenda and also submitted replies to the show-cause notices. All the petitioners except the petitioner in W.P.No.34765 of 2025 have also appeared before the General Body and made their submissions

26. [t is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, that the show cause notices do not mention the specific acts through which the petitioners have allegedly obstructed the functioning of the society, nor do they set out the particulars of the financial loss allegedly caused by them. He had submitted that making of general and bald allegations in the show cause notice does not entitle the society to take punitive action against the members.

27. tt is settled law that before taking punitive action against any person, the person concerned must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations. Unless specific allegations along with the relevant circumstances which lead to such conclusions, are communicated, the petitioners or the persons accused cannot be expected to give an effective reply. TMD,J W.P.Nos.29424 ,3415l, 34627 , 34764 &34765 of 2025 32

28. It is noticed that though the petitioners herein have requested for the details of the allegations made against them, the respondents have neither srupplied such particulars nor furnished any material in support of their contentions. Further, the explanations submitted by the petitioners were als,t not dealt with by way of speaking orders, but were summarily rejected by the General Body and the orders of termination of the membership were communicated to the petitioners vide impugned proceedirrgs. This is clearly against the spirit of the cooperative movement. The respondents appear to have taken action against the petitioner; solely on the ground that the petitioners challenged the activities of the Managing Committee. The Co-operative Societies Act does not t,rohibit mernbers from challenging the actions of the Managing Committer:. The cooperative principles require that members act in good faith and that actions against the members must not be arbitrary. 29, The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent'society are thus distinguishable on facts, particularly because the petitioners herein are seeking a direction to the respondents to W.P.Nos.29424, 3435 l, 34627, 34764 &34765 of 2025 33 consider their representations under Section 61 of the Act. Further, the proceedings of termination of the membership of the petitioners in W.l'.Nos.3 4351, 34621, 34764, antl 34765 of 2025 have not yet attained finality. T'herefbre, the petitioners shall continue to be the members ol'the society and shall also be entitled to participate in the elections scheduled to be held in December 2025. Since, it is stated that the term of Managing Comrnittee came to an end on 09.10.2025, respondent No.2 is directed to appoint an official PIC to conduct elections to the Managing Committee of the society at the earliest.

30. [n the result; (i) W.P.No.29424 of 2025 is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider and take action on the complaint of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since, the tenure of the committee has already expired, there can be no question of supersession, but a decision has to be taken on the report of the Assistant Registrar under Section 51 of the Act and till such time a decision is taken, the \ \ . \rli.1 :-_..-..-. I / / IMD,J W.p.Nos.29424, 343 S I, 34627, 34764 &34765 of2025 i 34 respondent No.2 ought not have taken any decision on the terminatiorl orders. (ii) w.P.Nos.3435l, 34764 aod 34i65 of 2025 are disposed of direcring the rcspondent No.2 to consicler the rcprcscntations of thc petitioners against the resorution under Scction 23 of the z\ct, and also issue notice under t(ulc 20 of the TCS Rules before taking a decision thereunder. (rii) w.P.No.34627 of 2025 is disposecl of directing the responclents No.2 and 3 to rectit,v the voters list as directed above beforc conduct of elections to the Managing Comrlittee.

31. The writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of'. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if voy, sha[ also stand dismissect. \ //TRUE COPY// P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Principal secretary Depa.rtment of cooperation, state oi Telangana, Secret;rriat Buildings, Hydeiabad. Registrar of cooperative Societies, for the state of relangana Gruhakalpa Buildinr;s, Hyderbbad . . .!:,:t:' j;, , ._,,_..: \ \

8. TJ BS The District Cooperative Officer Deputy Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, 52, 2nd Floor, IDOC, Kongara Kalan, Ranga Reddy District. One CC to Smt. Uma Devi Nama, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Advocate[OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI / One CC to Sri M. Prateek Reddy, Advocate[OPUC] Two CD Copies {* .: t' . ,i r.... :{1;.1,J.:: ., j HIGH COURT DATE D:19t12t202s COMMN ORDER 'Ir-iE s Y () * 1 a fin8 ?qlfi * I wP.Nos.29424,343s1 ,34621 , 34164 and 34765 of 2025 , DISPOSING OF THE ALL WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 0P .,- l, :l:;li-