APHC010148452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.340 of 2026 along with W.A.No.621 of 2026 Bench Sr.No.__ [3584] 1. W.A.No.340 of 2026: Hindustan Shipyard Staff Cooperative Building Society Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents 2. W.A.No.621 of 2026: Jayanthi Satya Prasad and others ...Appellants Vs. Hindustan Shipyard Staff Cooperative Building Society Ltd. & others ...Respondents ********** Reserved for orders on : 13.08.2026 Pronounced on : 18.09.2026 Whether only operative part : of the judgment is pronounced or whether full judgment is pronounced Full CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 18th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav in W.A.No.340 of 2026 Ms. Moguluru Iswarya in W.A.No.621 of 2026 2 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 Advocate for Respondents : Government Pleader for Cooperation – R1 to R6 Mr. Mangena Sree Rama Rao appearing vice Mr. Jangala Naga Venkata Tirumala Rao – R8 Mr. Sita Ram Chaparla – R9 Mr. Vema Ramanjaneyulu – R10 LISA GILL, CJ. Writ Appeal Nos.340 and 621 of 2026 are taken up together for consideration and adjudication, at request and with consent of learned counsel for parties, as both appeals arise out of common order dated 03.03.2026 passed by learned Single Bench. W.A.No.340 of 2026 has been filed by writ petitioner, being aggrieved of impugned order dated 03.03.2026, whereby writ petition filed by it has been dismissed. W.A.No.621 of 2026 has been filed by applicants-appellants who claim to be members of appellant- Hindustan Shipyard Staff Co-operative Building Society and therefore directly affected by impugned order. They were not parties before learned Writ Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that appellant in W.A.No.340 of 2026 filed W.P.No.14230 of 2025 for setting aside order dated 29.05.2025 passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, being without jurisdiction, unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, (for short, „1964 Act‟) and Rules made thereunder. Vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ordered supersession of managing committee of 3 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 appellant society for deliberate and willful disobedience of statutory directions issued by Registrar as defined under Section 2 of 1964 Act and on the premise that affairs of society were not being conducted properly, rather were in violation of applicable Rules, Regulations and bye-laws, by entering into agreements with realtors without observing proper procedure for entrustment of landed property of society worth crores of rupees. 3. A Senior Inspector, Sub-Division, Vishakhapatnam, was appointed as special officer to manage affairs of society till further orders. Learned Single Bench finding no merit in the writ petition dismissed the same while observing that Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was well within its rights to pass impugned order dated 29.05.2025 and the same was not without jurisdiction, moreover on merits of impugned order, it was held that the same is a conscious decision taken by the authority after analyzing various aspects and that there was no infirmity therein. However, it was directed that, in terms of Section 34 of 1964 Act, appointment of a special officer cannot be beyond two years, which can be extended at discretion of Registrar, but not beyond an aggregate period of three years. 4. It was thus clarified that appointment of special officer would be for a period of two years, excluding the period of interim stay granted by Court, subject to power of Registrar to extend this period to a maximum of three years. 4 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 5. Aggrieved therefrom, present W.A.No.340 of 2026 was filed by Society/writ petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for appellant in W.A.No.340 of 2026 vehemently argued that impugned order dated 03.03.2026 is totally without jurisdiction and learned Single Bench has erred in concluding that there is no lack of jurisdiction. It was argued that, in terms of Section 34 of the Act, it is only the Registrar who could have passed such an order and this power could not have been delegated by way of a mere executive fiat to the Deputy Registrar. Impugned order should have been set aside on this ground itself. 7. It was further argued that present managing committee has been incorrectly held responsible for the shortcomings or incorrect actions, if any, of the erstwhile managing committees. Entire facts were placed before the authority who did not look into same or consider them in correct perspective, despite written replies also having been submitted. 8. It was urged that landed properties of projects were purchased decades ago i.e. about 40 years ago and that mobilizing money from members towards cost of land was difficult. When the amounts were found insufficient to meet total cost of parcel of land, erstwhile managing committees of the society approached other members of some other projects for funds. Some of the members came to rescue of society and paid money. In view of same, some of the members were allotted another flat/plot after they had paid amounts towards cost of land. In case such a step had not been taken, there 5 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 would not have been much property to credit of the society as on today. This aspect was approved by members of all the projects and that, in the general body meeting dated 08.01.2012 and 13.03.2012, it was unanimously decided that the then managing committee of the society could go ahead with such course of action. 9. It was further submitted that agreements were entered into by the managing committee in respect to entrustment of layout to M/s. Bhava Engineering Limited, as per applicable rules. Pending litigation between parties in this respect was not even looked into by the learned Single Bench. All the arguments as addressed before learned Single Bench were not considered as such while merely concluding that a reading of impugned order dated 29.05.2025 indicates a conscious decision by the authority after analysis of various aspects mentioned. It was thus prayed that impugned order dated 03.03.2026 be set aside and the writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 10. W.A.No.621 of 2026 has been filed by applicants-appellants who claim to be members of the society and whose rights are statedly affected directly and substantially by the impugned proceedings as well as impugned order dated 03.03.2026 passed by learned Single Bench. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant-appellants in W.A.No.621 of 2026 that each and every member of the society should have been served with a notice before passing of impugned order dated 29.05.2025. Same not having been done, impugned order should be set aside on this basis itself. It was thus prayed that 6 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 leave to appeal be afforded and W.A.No.621 of 2026 be also allowed as prayed for. 11. Learned counsel for official respondents as well as respondent No.9 have opposed the appeals. Learned G.P. for Cooperation vehemently argued that Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in terms of G.O.Ms.No.34, Food and Agriculture (Co.op-IV) Department, dated 18.01.1989 as well as applicable provisions in 1964 Act. Learned Single Bench has appreciated the controversy in its correct perspective and has rightly dismissed writ petition. Managing committee failed to give any explanation whatsoever for shortcomings and discrepancies which were pointed out in show cause notice/notices issued prior to passing of order dated 29.05.2025. Said managing committee has entrusted valuable landed property of the society to an extent of Ac.16.00 cents in Sy.No.30 of Vepagunta Village, G.V.M.C., to M/s. Bhava Engineering Company/respondent No.8. Due procedure in calling of tenders etc. was not followed with clear-cut violation of directions issued by Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, under Section 4(2) of 1964 Act. More than 45 members of the society were allotted more than one flat/plot, details of which are duly given in order dated 29.05.2025 itself. It was submitted that it was correctly observed in order dated 29.05.2025 that the object of society was flouted and contravened by allotment of more than one plot/flat as if the Society is a private real-estate organization. Managing committee failed to produce any evidence on record 7 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 that the then managing committees had given wide publication through notices to its members for every venture in securing the advances for purchase of layouts belonging to the society and that requisite approvals from General Body and competent authorities were available on record. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 has referred to litigation which was pending between parties. Reference was also made to W.P.No.30049 of 2024 filed by said respondent, which was dismissed as infructuous on account of passing of order dated 29.05.2025. Dismissal of writ appeal was thus sought. 13. We heard learned counsel for parties at length and have perused the file carefully. 14. First argument raised by learned counsel for appellant was that order dated 29.05.2025 is totally without jurisdiction inasmuch as Deputy Registrar was not entitled to pass the same. At the very outset, it is relevant to refer to definition of „Registrar‟ as defined in Section 2(n) of 1964 Act, same reads as under: "2(n) „Registrar‟ means the Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed under Section 3(1) and includes any other person on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred." 15. Section 3 of 1964 Act reads as under: "3. Appointment of Registrar and other persons for the purpose of this Act:— 8 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 (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." 16. G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 18.01.1989 was notified wherein the extent of powers conferred upon Deputy Registrars of Cooperative Societies in charge of divisions is detailed as under: “In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (Act, 7 of 1964) as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1985, (Act 21 of 1985) and in supersession of the notification issued with G.O.Ms.No.667, Food and Agriculture (Coop.IV) Department, dated the 19th July, 1976 and G.O.Ms.No.165 , Food and Agriculture (Coop.IV) Department, dated the 27th March 1987, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby appoints the authorities mentioned in column (2) of the schedule below and confers on them in respect of societies mentioned in column (3) thereof, the powers of the Registrar under the said Act and rules made thereunder, specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said schedule. S. No. Authority Types of Cooperative Societies Extent of powers conferred 3 Deputy Registrars of Cooperative Societies in-charge of divisions. (i) Apex societies with headquarters situated in division, District Cooperative Central Banks, District Co- operative Marketing Societies and other district level societies and societies whose area of operation extends to more than one district and whose headquarters is Powers of the Registrar under Sections 6, 7 (except powers under Section 7 (1) in so far as it relates to prescribing minimum share capital and membership) and Sections 8, 16, 61, 62, 70, 71, 73 and 74 of the Act. 9 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 situated in the division. (ii) Urban Banks coming under the Banking Regulation Act. 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, 51, 52, 64(1), 76, 86, 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) Societies specified in Rule 12-A of the APCS rules, 1964 and all other Primary Societies and societies whose area of operation extends beyond the division and whose headquarters is situated in the division except societies under the administrative control of functional registrars. 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, 19(2- B), 1 [second and third proviso to sub- section (1) (a) of Section 31], Sections 50, 51, 52, 76, 86, 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. 17. Such delegation of powers has been maintained in subsequent G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 30.04.2026 as well. In the given facts and 10 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 circumstances, learned Single Bench has correctly held that Deputy Registrar did have the jurisdiction to pass order dated 29.05.2025 and that no exception has been carved out in applicable G.O. in respect to Section 34 of 1964 Act. Plea of lack of jurisdiction is thus devoid of any merit, hence, rejected. 18. Insofar as merits of controversy are concerned, learned Single Bench culled out following points as raised on behalf of writ petitioner: “(i) numerous objections have been raised from the members and nonmembers of the Society leveling certain illegal acts committed by the Managing Committee in entrusting Ac.16.00 cents in Sy.No.30 of Vepagunta Village, GVMC, Visakhapatnam in favour of Respondent No.8. It is stated that an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Registrar and a representation was submitted on 25.10.2023, wherein certain misdeeds were noted. As per the misdeeds specified, it is stated that the Managing Committee has entered MOU with Respondent No.8 without tender processing and contrary to the statutory directions issued under Section 4(2) of the Act and Rules. (ii) 45 members of the Society were allotted more than one plot in various layouts and other eligible members were denied which is against the cooperative movement. The list of 45 members who have been allotted more than one plot have been mentioned in a tabular statement in the impugned order. (iii) the Managing Committee has taken decisions without conducting General Body for allotment to register surplus land of an extent of Ac.16.00 cents in Simhachalam Phase-II in favour of 205 members who were already allotted flats in Phase-I of Simhachalam and other lay outs of the Society. The plots in Simhachalam Phase-I layout were registered in favour of some members, but decision was not handed over and the Management had failed to protect the property from the land grabbers. (iv) Non-rectification of the defects pointed out during the course of Audit for the last several years and a notice under Section 54 of the Act 11 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 was also issued to submit rectification reports, but no action was taken to rectify the Audit defects as pointed out by the Auditor for the years 2020- 2021. (v) The present Managing Committee alleged that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was collected from each member by the Previous Managing Committee for maintenance of buildings in Simhachalam Phase-II, but there are no accounts to that effect. The impugned order also states that though a show cause notice was issued, as the same was not satisfactory, the impugned order was passed.” 19. After noting the abovesaid points, it is concluded by learned Single Bench as under: “16. A reading of the impugned order indicates a conscious decision by the authority after analysing various aspects as mentioned supra. In the facts narrated above, the power exercised by Respondent No.3 cannot be said to be arbitrary as there is a basis for exercising such power.” 20. In our considered opinion, questions at hand as raised on merits of the matter indeed require a detailed consideration, after an examination of factum as to whether the relevant record available at hand justifies and substantiates the pleas as have been raised on behalf of the managing committee. 21. At this juncture, we take note of the fact that Section 76 of 1964 Act provides a remedy of appeal to any person or society aggrieved by any decision taken under Section 34 of the Act before the tribunal. Such an appeal as per Section 76(3) can be filed within sixty days from date of communication of order and in case a tribunal is satisfied that an appeal has been preferred even after said period, the same can be entertained. 12 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 22. In our considered opinion, the tribunal is best equipped to consider the issues as have been raised. We thus relegate the appellant society to its remedy of appeal before learned tribunal. We take note of the fact that writ petition for challenging order dated 29.05.2025 was filed on 10.06.2025 itself. Therefore, in case an appeal is filed by appellant before learned tribunal within the next six (6) weeks, the same be entertained. Impugned order dated 03.03.2026 is thus upheld to the extent of the question of jurisdiction as decided therein, however, the conclusion on merits of the matter are set aside and the appellant/writ petitioner is relegated to its remedy of appeal before the tribunal in terms of Section 76 of 1964 Act. 23. W.A.No.340 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly. 24. Insofar as W.A.No.621 of 2026 is concerned, we take note of the fact that it has been filed by applicant-appellants who claim to be members of the society. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by them that order dated 29.05.2025 should be set aside on the premise that notice was not issued to each of the members of society. Reliance by learned counsel for said applicants-appellants on a Single Bench decision of this High Court in the case of Mahabubnagar toddy tappers cooperative society, Mahabubnagar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar, 2005 (2) ALD 468 is misplaced, inasmuch as in said case, it was held that “each member of the managing committee” should have been served with notices, but the same was served only upon president of society and that it was not uncommon that polarization exists within a committee and 13 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 there may be a difference of opinion amongst committee members. Said decision does not come to aid of the applicant-appellants, who all are admittedly not members of managing committee. Even if they had been so, in the absence of any attending circumstances being pleaded by them, this decision does not come to their aid. 25. It is to be noted that perusal of order dated 29.05.2025 reveals that, in this case, all the members of managing committee were served because it was specifically mentioned that there is no response from other members of the managing committee in respect to notice issued. Application seeking leave to appeal as well as application seeking condonation of delay are thus dismissed. W.A.No.621 of 2026 also stands dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of aforementioned connected case. LISA GILL, CJ Date: 18.09.2026 CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs Uploaded on : 18.09.2026 Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes Whether the order is Reportable : Yes/No 14 W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 _82_ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.A.Nos.340 & 621 of 2026 Dt: 18.09.2026 kbs