( 1 ) - The petitioner claims to be the elected President of sri Gopalaswamy Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Adapavari-palem village. The first respondent under Section 34 (1) of the Andhra pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, for short the Act has issued notice to the petitioner and other members of the Committee of Management proposing to supersede the Committee of Management and calling upon the petitioner and other Members of the Committee of management to submit their written explanation on or before 29-12-1995. This notice dt. 21-12-1995 issued by the respondent under Section 34 (1) of the Act is called in question in this writ petition. Sri M. V. Durga Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly contended that the impugned notice is one without jurisdiction and competence and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to sudersede the office of the elected President. In support of his submission Sri Durga prasad would draw the attention of the Court to sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act. Secondly the learned Counsel would contend that the action is otherwise tainted by mala fide and the first respondent has taken the impugned action at the behest of the third respondent-Minister.

( 2 ) I do not find any force in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly notice is issued under sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act reads as under :"34. Superession of the Committee. (1) If in the opinion of the registrar, the Committee is not functioning properly or wilfully disobeys or fails to comply wilfully with any lawful order or direction issued by the Registrar under this Act or the rules, he may, after giving the committee an opportunity of making its representation, by order supersede the Committee an opportunity of making its specified date ; and appoint either a person (hereinafter referred to as the special officer) or a committee of two or more persons (hereinafter referred to as the managing committee) to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding two yeass, specified in the order which period, may, at the discretion of the Registrar, be extended from time to time, so however, that the aggregate period shall not exceed three years. "at this stage it is relevant to note that/as held by the Apex Court in geep Plash Light Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1977 SC 456, a show cause notice is not an order affecting any body s right. The court can interfere with show cause notice only where a show cause notice is issued by an incompetent authority. That is the precise argument of sri Durga Prasad and he contends that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The language of Section 34 (1) is quite precise, unambiguous and does not admit more than one meaning. It provides that if in the opinion of the Registrar the Committee is not functioning properly or wilfully disobeys with any lawful order or direction issued by the Registrar, he may, after giving the Committee an opportunity of making its representation, by order supersede the Committee of Management of a co-operative society. The impugned notice makes it very clear that as many as 8 members of the Committee of management have tendered their resignation under rule 23-AAA of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, the first respondent has also pointed out that the Committee of management is not functioning properly and there is a deadlock in the management of the Society due to existence of rival groups. Therefore it cannot be said that the cond itions precedent to initiate proceedings under Section 34 (1) of the Act do not exist. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a part of the Committee of management of co-operative Society is not at all acceptable to the Court. Sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act only provides that th