The initiation of proceedings under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, must be based on one of the grounds specified in the section and the enquiry proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) CHALLENGING the legality and valid ity of the order of the Deputy Registrar, co-operative Society, Mahaboobabad (the third respondent herein) dated 17-10-1986 as confirmed by the order dated 30-12-1988 in C. T. A. No. 3 of 1986 by the Appellate tribunal, Narasampet (the learned Munsif- magistrate, Narasampet -the fourth respondent herein), Mandava Laxmana rao, the writ petitioner filed this writ petition to call for the records relating to and connected with Rc. No. 1283/85-C of the third respondent and quash the same, raising the following contentions.

( 2 ) THE first and fore-most important contention raised by Sri Movva chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the initiation of the proceed ings under Section 51 of the Andhra pradesh Co-operative Societies Act VII of 1964 (the Act) itself is bad, illegal and void in law as the said order was passed without satisfying any one of the ingredients of that section. To appreciate this contention it is necessary to read Section 51 of the Act, which is to the following effect. " The Registrar may, of his own motion and shall, on the application of a society to which the society concerned is afficiated, 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 enquiry or direct some person authorised by him by an order in this behalf to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society. Such enquiry shall be completed withinaperiod of four months from the date of commencement of the enquiry and the report of enquiry along with the findings of the Registrar thereon shall be placed before the next general meeting of the society:"as per the above section the inquiry may be held on the following grounds viz. , (1) the registrar s own motion i. e. , suo motu; (2) 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 (3) or of not less than one-fifth of the total number of members of the society. In the present case admittedly the Inquiry proceedings were initiated basing on the application of one ofthe members of the first respondent society dated 23-6-1985 submitted to the Hon. Minister for Cooperation requesting him to order an enquiry into the affairs of the first respondent Society with special reference to the misappropriation of the funds of the said Society by the petitioner herein, on which the Hon. Minister ordered enquiry, and the Special Grade Deputy Registrar/ district Co-operative Officer, Warangal on the next day itself i. e. on 24-6-1985 authorised the Deputy Registrar/officer on Special duty, District Co-operative Central Bank ltd. , Warangal to conduct the enquiry in the said alleged misappropriation of funds ofthe first respondent society. So admittedly the inquiry proceedings were not initiated suo motu by the Registrar as it was done under the directions of the Hon. Minister on the application. Neither one-third ofthe members of the committee nor of not less than one- fifth of the total number of members of the society made an application to the Registrar making allegations againstthe petitionerabout the alleged misappropriation of the funds of the first respondent-society. So none of the grounds mentioned in Section 51 of the Act were satisfied making a ground to initiate the enquiry proceedings in question. I see some force in the contention of Sri Movva chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner that the initiation of the proceedings is ab initio void as no just or reasonable grounds are made out attracting the provisions of Section 51 of the Act.

( 3 ) SRI Movva Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel next contended that the enquiry proceedings were not properly and validly conducted; hence it is irregular and improper and so the same has to be quashed. From the record it can be seen that the petitioner eng