The petitioner is the President of Pedakallepalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District (for short ‘the Society’). He challenges the proceedings dated 22-03-2006, issued by the District Co-operative Officer-cum-Joint Registrar, Krishna District, the 1st respondent, requiring the petitioner to place the inquiry report dated 06-03-2006, submitted under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), before the general body of the Society, for further action.

The petitioner submits that he was elected as the President of the Society, on 22-10-2005, and ever since then, he is discharging the functions in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, and without any complaint from any quarter. It is alleged that the local M.L.A. addressed a letter dated 24-02-2005 to the 1st respondent for initiating action against the management of the society, and in compliance with the same, the 1st respondent ordered inquiry under Section 51 of the Act, by appointing the 3rd respondent as an Inquiry Officer. It is stated that almost a fishing inquiry was undertaken, contrary to the provisions of the Act, and that the report, which was submitted beyond the time, stipulated, under the provisions; was directed to be placed before the general body. Petitioner submits that the initiation of inquiry, under Section 51, as well as the subsequent proceedings are contrary to the provisions of the Act, and are vitiated.

On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. The allegation that the inquiry was ordered at the instance of the local M.L.A., is denied. It is stated that the Audit Officer, who conducted the audit of the accounts of the Society, pointed out several irregularities in the administration of the society, through his letter dated 07-03-2005, and in that view of the matter, the inquiry was ordered. It is stated that the petitioner can be said to have suffered prejudice, only when any surcharge proceedings are initiated, and not otherwise.

Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very initiation of inquiry under Section 51 of the Act, was untenable, inasmuch as it was clearly done on the basis of a letter addressed by the local M.L.A. He contends that none of the circumstances, under which the inquiry can be ordered; existed, and thereby, the proceedings are vitiated.

Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the report was not submitted within the stipulated period, and in that view of the matter, no further proceedings can be taken on the basis of such a report.

Learned Government pleader for Co-operation, on the other hand, submits that it is competent for the 1st respondent to order inquiry suo motu, and when there existed valid material and information, in the form of a report of an audit officer, the inquiry was properly initiated. He contends that the time-frame, stipulated under Section 52 of the Act is not mandatory. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in B. Srinivasulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1988 (1) ALT 10 (NRC).

The 1st respondent ordered inquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Consequently an inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted. Thereupon, the 1st respondent required the President of the Society, to place the report before the general body. The petitioner raises two contentions against the report, viz., that the very initiation of inquiry was contrary to Section 51 of the Act, and that the report, which was submitted after the expiry of the period, stipulated under the provisions; cannot entail any further action. Section 51 of the Act reads as under:

“Sec.51. Inquiry:- 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 o