1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 27-8-2009 and issued rule nisi on 6-10-2009.

2. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent. A reply affidavit also had been filed.

3. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in initiating the enquiry under Section 29 of the A.P.Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) for the purpose of reconstituting the existing Managing Committee as illegal and arbitrary and consequently declare the enquiry into the affairs of the society for the said purpose initiated by the respondent as without jurisdiction and pass such other suitable orders.

4. Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also had further drawn the attention of this Court to Section 29 of the Act and further had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant definitions under the Act and also Section 23 of the Act as well and would maintain that such enquiry for the purpose of reconstitution of the existing Managing Committee cannot be exercised since the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act.

5. Per contra, the learned G.P. for Cooperation had taken this Court through the language of Section 29 of the Act and would maintain that it is not for the purpose of the reconstitution of the existing Managing Committee but however an enquiry was made and enquiry report also was made ready. The learned G.P. for Cooperation also would maintain that the further steps would be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The learned G.P. for Cooperation also had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the clear language of Section 29 of the Act, since the power of the respondent in this regard cannot be doubted, the writ petition being devoid of merit, the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard the Counsel.

7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner Society was registered on 6-12-2004 in the Office of the Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, Ongole. The Society was established for the purpose of Economic and Social Development based on the self help Mutually Cooperation on Democratic basis on the Principles of Cooperation. The Society was mainly established to distribute water under the lift irrigation scheme established on Ogeruvagu at Upalapadu village of Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. The Lift Irrigation was sanctioned by the Government and the work is in progress. The work is sought to be executed through contractor. The said Lift Irrigation Scheme was aimed to irrigate about 3,400 acres of land. The contractor had not completed the work for various reasons which is not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition.

8. Further it is stated that one of the Chief Promoters of the Society, nine other Directors are the other Promoters along with the Chairman of the petitioner Society who had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the main aim of the Society is to Manage and Maintain the Lift Irrigation scheme after its completion and thereafter to manage the supply of water to the lands in a systematic way for the benefit of the ryots. As of now, there is no economic activity as the scheme is not completed. The Society is trying its level best to get the Lift Irrigation Scheme completed. The Chief Promoter and another have spent their personal money to see that the Lift Irrigation Scheme progresses further. The contractor is not doing the work as per the schedule stating that there is escalation of prices of the material as well as labour charges and other service charges. The Chief Promoter and Directors of the petitioner Society are trying their best to see that the project is completed so that the