Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

The appellants herein are the petitioners in W.P.No.21827 of 2017. They have preferred this appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.26862 of 2017 in W.P.No.21827 of 2017 dated 21.07.2017 directing that the enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act") shall go on; but, however, its implementation would be subject to the final result of the Writ Petition.

2. The order impugned in the writ petition is the proceedings of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur dated 03.05.2017 directing that an enquiry be caused under Section 51 of the Act with regards certain fraudulent transactions made in the 7th respondent-bank, and misappropriation of funds by discharging fake fix deposits etc. While the impugned order refers to other matters also, it would suffice to note that an enquiry is sought to be caused by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in the exercise of his powers under Section 51 of the Act, since the District Co-operative Officer, Ananthapuram had, along with his letter dated 25.09.2014, enclosed the enquiry report of the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Ananthapuram dated 03.09.2014 that fake fixed deposit bonds were discharged for a sum of Rs. 12,22,316/-; the fake fixed deposit amounts were credited in the S.B. Account No.14471 of one Sri P. Ramesh, son of Sri P. Ramaiah, Korrapadu Village, B.K. Samudram Mandal which was opened duly enclosing Voter-ID card No.UAV0354789; proper records were not maintained by the bank, and proper verification of KYC norms was not done; it was felt that there was active connivance of the bank staff, in opening such improper accounts, to commit this fraud intentionally; Rs. 1,60,000/- was credited on 23.04.2013, and Rs. 1,70,000/- was withdrawn on 14.05.2013 from this account, without relevant entries in the scroll and day book, and without supporting challans; and there was a suspicion that this fictitious account was created to make fraudulent transactions through it.

3. The impugned order also records that the inspection reports of National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Regional Office, Hyderabad (for short "the NABARD"), and especially the report for the year ending 31.03.2014, confirmed the occurrence of many such frauds in the bank, against which no report had been furnished by the bank so far of having taken concrete steps in bringing such cases to a logical conclusion so as to curtail further occurrence of such frauds; and he (i.e. the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies) was satisfied, on an examination of the entire issue and the material available, that it was expedient to order an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act to probe deep into the matter, to cull out the facts, and fix specific responsibility against those concerned.

4. Section 51 of the Act relates to inquiry and enables the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on his own motion, to hold an inquiry, 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. The contention urged before the Learned Single Judge was, primarily, that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies lacked jurisdiction to order an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, in view of Section 115-D of the said Act.

5. We pointed out to Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioners, that, since the main Writ Petition is still pending adjudication before the Learned Single Judge and this appeal is only against an interlocutory order, any finding recorded by us on the contentions urged by him may adversely effect the appellants' interest in the main Writ Petition. Learned Counsel, however, insisted that we examine the question whether or not the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has jurisdiction to cause an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, as the o