(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders issued by Respondent No.3 vide bearing Rc No.490/2023/C dated 29-05-2025 as per se illegal. dehors jurisdiction and application of mind and ultra vires, manifestly arbitrary, whimsical, casual and mechanical capricious, vindictive, unreasonable, preposterous, premeditated, malafide besides being in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rules made thereunder, and to consequently set aside the same and/or to pass
IA 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 may be pleased to suspend the orders issued by the Respondent No.3 vide bearing Proceedings Rc.No.490/2023/C dated 29-05-2025, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass
IA 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 Pleased to permit the petitioner to be impleaded as Party / Proposed Respondent No. 9 in W.P. No. 14230 of 2025 and also pending Interlocutory Applications therein, in the interest of justice and pass
IA NO: 3 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 may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dt. 12.06.2025 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in W.P. No 14230 of 2025 and also dismiss the Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 4 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 may be pleased to permit the Petitioner herein to be impleaded as Respondent in the above Writ Petition in the interests of justice and pass
IA NO: 5 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 may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dt. 12.06.2025 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in W.P. No 14230 of 2025 and also dismiss the Writ Petition and pass)
1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed by Respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.490/2023/C, dated 29.05.2025, superseding the Petitioner-Society for deliberate and willful disobedience of statutory directions issued by the Registrar.
2. The facts in brief of the case are that:
The Petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) with a primary object of acquiring land and obtaining layout permissions and allotting plots to eligible members of the Society. It is stated that the Petitioner- Society had developed several layouts and allotted plots to its members in accordance with the approvals and permissions given by the authorities from time to time. It is stated that the Managing Committee of the Society was duly elected on 03.02.2022 pursuant to the General Body Meeting and resolution.
3. While so, on 26.10.2023, Respondent No.3 had issued a notice vide proceedings bearing Rc.No.490/2023/C under Section 54 of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner had submitted their reply. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 again issued a letter Rc.No.490/2023/C, dated 18.03.2025 and the same was replied by a letter dated 03.04.2025. Eventually, on 22.04.2025, Respondent No.4 had issued proceedings bearing Rc.No.1405/2023-B (Coop) under Section 52 of the Act, directing a statutory inspection into the Society along with alleged financial irregularities. It is stated that the said proceedings had no legal basis and were initiated only at the behest of strangers, who do not have any nexus to the Petitioner-Society.
4. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued a showcase notice under Section 34 of the Act on 06.05.2025 calling upon for an explanation from the President, Vice President and Managing Committee of the Petitioner-Society as to why it should not be superseded for disobedience of statutory directions issued by the Registrar and improper functioning of the Petitioner-Society. It is stated that the President and Vice President had submitted an elaborate explanation to the said notice on 21.05.2025 explaining every aspect of the showcase notice. However, Respondent No.3, without analysing the explanation given by the Petitioner, had passed the impugned order superseding the elected committee. Hence, the present writ petition.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.3, it is stated that numerous petitions have been received from the members and non- members of the Society alleging illicit acts in entering MOU with Respondent No.8. The Officers have noticed grave misdeeds and violations of the provisions of statutory directions issued under Section 4(2) of the Act and Rules and also bye-laws of the Society without tender process and contrary to the statutory directions issued under Section 4(2) of the Act and Rules. It is also stated that there is non- rectification of the defects pointed out during the course of the audit for the last several years by the previous managements and also the present managing committees. The previous management had collected an amount of Rs.30,000/- from each member as corpus fund, but the money is not accounted for. It is also stated that certain members of the Managing Committee have got more than one plot/flat secured in the landed properties of the Society during the term of the concerned Managing Committees, which is in contravention of the Rules and Regulations and the averments and contentions of the Petitioner in the affidavit are totally false.
6. Counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No.8 stating that it had entered into a legally valid Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 02.01.2023 with the Petitioner for development of land measuring Ac.16.00 cents in Sy.No.30 of Vepagunta Village after due negotiations. As per the MOU, the 8th Respondent has to construct the flats adhering to RERA provisions apart from resolving/incurring entire litigation expenses pending on the above mentioned land. It is also stated that the 8th Respondent has already incurred approximately Rs.10 crores towards contesting litigations, hiring counsels, senior counsels, due diligence, drafting, project reports etc. It is also stated that the proper procedure was followed and that the tender was awarded to the Petitioner among six other bidders with unanimous approval of General Body on 01.01.2023 and reaffirmed by the General Body on 26.02.2023. It is stated that the conclusions were arrived at without offering hearing to the Petitioner and are unsubstantiated. It is stated that the impugned proceedings were initiated at the instance of third parties who are unrelated with the affairs of the Society.
7. Respondent Nos.9 and 10 were impleaded vide orders in I.A.No.2 of 2025 and I.A.No.4 of 2025 dated 18.07.2025 and 01.08.2025 respectively.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.9, it is stated that a MOU dated 15.09.2020 was executed with the Petitioner-Society with regard to Ac.16.00 cents of land at Vepagunta Village, which is the basis for multiple judicial and arbitral proceedings. It is stated that the present Managing Committee has been subject to multiple complaints, audit reports and irregularities. It is stated that the cancellation of MOU was challenged in A.A.O.P.No.600 of 2024, wherein interim order of status quo was granted by Principal District Judge, Guntur. It is also stated that the deponent’s lawful possession over the subject land was recognized in W.P.No.5443 of 2025. In sum and substance, this Respondent No.9 seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Respondent No.10 filed counter affidavit contending that it had offered quotations on 21.05.2022 and 21.07.2022, for settlement of civil disputes with illegal land grabbing gangs and for construction of flats for the remaining 205 members of the Society. It is stated that the Managing Committee without intimation to the members of the Society and without general body, the President and Vice President opened tenders and allotted work to Respondent No.8. It is stated that no tender was quoted by Respondent No.8 and a MOU was entered prior to general body meeting. It was stated that the quotation of Respondent No.10 was highest and the award of tender in favour of Respondent No.8 is contrary to Section 19 and Rule 28 of A.P.C.S. Act and Rules respectively. It is stated that Rs.61,50,000/- was collected from the members @ Rs.30,000/- per head, but there is no account. It is stated that the land is extremely valuable i.e. more than Rs.100 crores and it would in the interest of all to sustain the impugned order.
10. Rejoinders and additional pleadings hovered around the MOUs which have little relevance to this case.
11. Heard Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, Sri Jangala Naga Venkata Tirumal Rao and Sri Vema Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsels appearing for the Respondents. The arguments were principally with regard to the authority of Respondent No.3 to issue the impugned order. Arguments were also advanced with regard to M.O.Us as stated above, they have little consequence on the exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act leading to the impugned order.
12. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the following issues fall for consideration:
(i) Whether Respondent No.3 has jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 34 of the Act against the Petitioner-Society?
(ii) Whether the impugned order warrants interference?
13. Reasoning: The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies i.e. Respondent No.3 exercising power conferred under G.O.Ms.No.34, Food and Agriculture (Co.op.IV), dated 18.01.1989. The G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 18.01.1989 was issued under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 delegating powers of Registrar depending on the nature of the Society. As regards powers conferred on the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in charge of Divisions, it reads as under:
| Sl. No | Authority | Types of Co-operative Societies | Extent of powers conferred |
| 3. | Deputy Registrar Of Co- operative SocietiesIn charge of divisions |
| Powers to 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.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 Sections 31, Section 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. |
15. Column 3(iii) is relevant for the purpose of this case and the power is applicable in so far as following Societies:
(a) Societies specified in 12-A of the Rules;
(b) All primary Societies and
(c) Societies whose area of operation extends beyond the division and whose headquarters is situated in the division.
16. The Clause (c) above indicates that the power can be exercised with regard to all types of Societies whose area of operation extends beyond the division subject to the headquarters of the Society should be in the division. Column (iv) of the above table provides for the powers which can be exercised by Respondent No.3 and the power under Section 34 of the Act is not excepted in so far as the above mentioned societies.
17. The Rule 12 and 12A of the Rules, 1964 provide the classification of the Societies. As per clause (1) and (2) of the bye- laws, the object of the Society is to carry on the trade and building, buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing the lands in accordance with the co-operative principles and give loans to the members for construction of houses and its area of operation was upto 5 meters beyond the municipal limits of Visakhapatnam Municipality. The primary objective of the Society does not appear to be housing, but to develop lands into layouts and allot plots to the members and can be classified as a miscellaneous society under Rule 12(m) of the society.
18. In the writ affidavit, it is stated that the Petitioner-Society had developed several layouts and allotted plots to its members in accordance with the approvals, permissions granted by the authorities in vogue. In the tabular statement of the impugned order, the layouts developed in Simhachalam Phase-II, Nauka Nagar, Madhurawada, Narava Layout have been mentioned as areas developed by the Petitioner-Society for allotment of plots to its members apart from Ac.16.00 cents at Vepagunta. The above would indicate that the Petitioner-Society is extending its operations beyond the division though having its registered address in Visakhapatnam. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondent No.3 does not have jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 34 of the Act against the Petitioner- Society in terms of G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 18.01.1989 as the society is having area of operations beyond the division.
19. Apart from that the plea of lack of jurisdiction vis-à-vis the G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 18.01.1989 was not urged in the pleadings in support of the writ affidavit. The issue No.1 is accordingly answered.
20. Issue No.2: Coming to the merits of the impugned order, it is stated that;
(i) numerous objections have been raised from the members and non- members 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 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.
21. 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.
22. One aspect of the contentions of the Petitioners which deserves consideration is that the Special Officer appointed was directed to discharge duties in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and the Act and Rules from time to time, but no time frame is fixed. As per Section 34 of the Act, an outer limit for the Special Officer is fixed as two years which can be extended at the discretion of the Registrar, but not beyond an aggregated period of three years. Therefore, the impugned order to extent of non-specification of period is clarified as two years excluding the period of interim stay granted by this Court, subject to the power of Registrar to extend to a maximum period of three years.
23. Therefore, this Court is not in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding the correctness of the impugned order.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.