APHC010024412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.97 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-22 [3446] V. C. Poli Reddy ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant : Sri Y. V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. Bobba Vijayalakshmi Advocate for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Ms. M. Siva Jyothi, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 13th November 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral) : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.39360 of 2014. 2. The petitioners, before the learned single Judge, had challenged the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by respondent No.3 i.e., The District Co-operative Officer, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District as also the Memo dated 03.12.2014 issued by the Government. 2 3. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed and hence, the present Writ Appeal. 4. We deem it appropriate to briefly state the facts in the background on which the present controversy had arisen. 5. Petitioner No.2 was working as a President of the Chennakesampalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Chennakesampalli Village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District. On account of the allegations made against the petitioners, it appears that a preliminary inquiry was ordered by the District Co-operative Officer, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa, which inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Registrar (Credit) in the office of the District Co-operative Office, Kadapa regarding various allegations of irregularities and disbursement of Government incentives, loan disbursement and other issues with regard to mis-utilisation of loans. 6. The Assistant Registrar, upon conducting the preliminary inquiry, did not find any merit in the allegations levelled against the petitioners and held the same as baseless. The report was, accordingly, submitted to the District Co-operative Officer. This was somewhere in the year 2011. 7. The District Co-operative Officer, yet, again, by virtue of his order dated 06.08.2013, on noticing certain irregularities through newspapers as also representation of the Member of Legislative Assembly, Badvel regarding certain benami loans and mis-utilization of funds, ordered an inquiry under 3 Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”) to look into the affairs of Chennakesampalli P.A.C.S. This was based upon the recommendations made by the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Rajampet. The Inquiry Officer was instructed to complete the inquiry within a stipulated period. This order came to be challenged by the petitioners before the Government by way of a revision petition, which was dismissed by virtue of its order dated 03.12.2014. It was held that there was no need to interfere at that stage, as the statutory inquiry was merely fact finding to form a basis for further course of action and the petitioner would be given opportunity for being heard during the course of inquiry. 8. As a necessary consequence of the dismissal of the revision petition by the Government, the Principal Secretary to Government, vide memo dated 15.01.2014, on examination of the matter, ordered the disposal of the revision petition with a direction to remand the matter to the District Co-operative Officer, who, thereafter, by virtue of his order dated 16.12.2014, ordered an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act to conduct an inquiry to the constitution, management, working and other financial irregularities in Chennakesampalli P.A.C.S. 9. By virtue of the said order, the District Co-operative Officer authorized the Assistant Registrar, Rajampet by virtue of the powers vested in him in terms of G.O.Ms.No.19, Agriculture and Co-operation (Coop.IV) Department, dated 01.02.1995. It is precisely in that background that the petitioners filed 4 the writ petition challenging the aforementioned order as also the memo on the ground primarily that an inquiry having been conducted by the Assistant Registrar which led to the exoneration of the petitioners could not have been re-initiated by virtue of the orders of the District Co-operative Officer and that the petitioners could not have been subjected to the proceedings once again. 10. It was urged that in case the earlier inquiry was not acceptable to the District Co-operative Officer, then, adequate reasons ought to have been given and recorded by the said officer before ordering the inquiry under Section 51 of the Act afresh. Apart from this, it was empathetically urged that the District Co-operative Officer had no authority to delegate the power to conduct an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act, as the power to conduct an inquiry was vested only in the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. 11. At this stage, it is deemed appropriate to refer to some of the provisions of the Act which would bring some clarity on the issue. Section 51 of the Act deals with conduct of inquiries and envisages as under:- “The Registrar, may of his own motion and shall, on the application of a society to which the society concerned is affiliated, or of not less than one third of the members of the Committee, or of not less than one fifth of the total number of members of the society, hold an inquiry or direct some person authorized by him by an order in this behalf to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society……...” 12. Section 3 of the said Act further envisages as under:- 5 “3. Appointment of Registrar and other persons for the purpose of this Act:- (1) There shall be appointed a Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State and as many other persons as the Government think fit for the purposes of this Act. (2) Every other person appointed under sub-section (1) shall exercise under the general superintendence of the Registrar, such powers of the Registrar, under this Act as the Government may, from time to time, confer on him.” It is in exercise of the powers vested in the Government under Section 3(2) that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.34, Food and Agriculture (Coop.IV) Department, dated 16.01.1989, prescribing the Schedule by virtue of which the authorities mentioned therein could exercise the powers. 13. For purposes of reference, a part of the Schedule is reproduced hereunder:- “S. No. Authority Types of Cooperative Societies Extent of powers conferred 2. Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Coop.Societies working as District Cooperative Officers (i) District Cooperative Central Banks and District Cooperative Marketing Societies All the powers of the Registrar under the Act except those under sections 4(2), 7(1) (in so far as it relates to prescribing minimum share capital and membership) sections 17, 18, third proviso to sub section (1) of section 31, sections 32(7), 34, 50, 60, 64(1), 86, 115, 116, 116-A and 116-C and the powers of Registrars under rules 4, 12, 27, 28, 29, 34 (14), 39, 41, 45, 59 and 68. (ii) Other District level societies and other societies All the powers of the Registrar under the Act (except those under sections 4(2), 7(1) (in so far as it 6 whose area of operation extends in more than one district and whose headquarters is situated in the district and which is not an Apex society and Primary Societies other than the societies under the administrative control of functional Registrars. relates to prescribing minimum share capital and membership) sections 17, 18, third proviso to sub-section (1) of section 31, sections 50, 83, 115, 116, 116-A and 116-C and the powers of the Registrar under rules 4, 12, 27, 28, 29, 34 (14), 39, 41, 45, 59 and 68. (iii) Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies Powers of the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 16-C of the Act, subject to guidelines issued by Registrar of Cooperative Societies.” 14. Subsequently, there was an amendment incorporated to the said G.O.Ms.No.34 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 01.02.1995, which amendment reads as under:- “In the schedule appended to the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.34, Food and Agriculture (Coop.IV) Department, dated 16.1.1989 the words Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies working as “appearing in Col.2 against Sl.No.2 shall be deleted.” 15. Post the amendment incorporated in the year 1995, whereas earlier, it was only a Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies working as District Co-operative Officer, who could exercise the powers, in particular, 7 the powers under Section 51, post the amendment, the said power can now be exercised by any District Co-operative Officer. 16. On a plain reading of G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 16.01.1989, it can be seen that the powers which are otherwise exercisable by the District Co-operative Officers in regard to District Co-operative Central Banks and District Co-operative Marketing Societies and which are otherwise enumerated in Column No.4 of the Schedule are not otherwise available to be exercised by the District Co-operative Officer in regard to P.A.C.S. and the power insofar as the P.A.C.S. is concerned, the powers which have been delegated to the District Co-operative Officers are only such powers as are otherwise exercisable by the Registrar under Section 116C (wrongly written as Section 16C of the A.P.C.S. Act). 17. On a plain reading of the aforementioned provision, we feel that the order issued by the District Co-operative Officer authorizing the Assistant Registrar to conduct an inquiry in terms of Section 51 of the Act is, therefore, be without jurisdiction. 18. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that no inquiry at all could have been conducted or ordered to be conducted either by the Registrar or his delegate in view of the fact that earlier, an inquiry was conducted which resulted in his exoneration, is concerned, although an argument was advanced that the earlier inquiry which was conducted by the 8 Assistant Registrar was in the nature of a preliminary inquiry and not one ordered under Section 51 of the Act, yet, we need not go into that question at all at this stage, as Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, during the course of his arguments, has suggested that the issues which were the subject matter of inquiry by the Assistant Registrar in the year 2011 were not the issues on which the enquiry is now sought to be conducted by the official respondents. 19. In that view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the District Co-operative Officer, Kadapa, is without jurisdiction and is set aside. Notwithstanding the above, we leave it open to the Registrar to decide as to whether an inquiry is required to be initiated by or under his directions afresh into the allegations against the petitioners. 20. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J AMD 9 16 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL No.97 of 2025 Dt : 13.11.2025 AMD