The court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing in legal proceedings, ruling that the dismissal of the writ petition was flawed due to the lack of opportunity to contest jurisdictional issues.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Cheemalapati, J.)

Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 07.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.22627 of 2017, the petitioner in the said writ petition preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings issued by respondent no.3 and consequential proceedings issued by respondent no.5 being illegal; was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority.

3. The facts that led to filing of the writ appeal, in brief, are that:

(a) The petitioner is president of respondent no.7-Devuni Kadapa Police Department Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building society Limited. In pursuance of the representation submitted by a member of the said society regarding serious irregularities found in the functioning of the society; the Registrar of the Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, by proceedings dated 03.12.2015, directed the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Proddatur to conduct an enquiry and submit a report and accordingly, a detailed report dated 31.03.2016 was submitted. Thereupon, the Special Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies reviewed the said report and vide orders dated 01.06.2016 directed to take follow up action, besides directing the District Cooperative Officer, Kadapa to initiate action for recovery of Rs.6,53,358/- from the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 33 of Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short, ‘APMACS Act’) and criminal action under section 38(4) of the APMACS Act for misappropriation of funds of the society. Challenging the enquiry report dated 31.03.2016 as well as the orders dated 01.06.2016, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.43648 of 2016. Considering the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader based on the written instructions that the respondent will follow the procedure stipulated by law before decision is taken; the said writ petition was disposed of on 23.12.2016, making it clear that disposal of the writ petition shall not be understood as this Court expressing view on the objections now stated in the affidavit on merits canvassed by the petitioner. The District Cooperative Officer issued proceedings dated 28.10.2016 authorizing the Divisional Cooperative officer to file criminal case against the committee members including its president i.e. the petitioner and pursuantly, the Divisional Cooperative Officer addressed a letter to the concerned Station House Officer and a case in Crime No.100 of 2016 came to be registered under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC. Aggrieved thereby the writ petition covered under the orders impugned in this writ appeal has been filed.

(b) The learned single Judge, upon considering the material available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, holding that in view of the orders passed in W.P.No.43648 of 2016, which have become final, the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot advance arguments questioning the competence of respondent no.2-the Special Commissioner and Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Society in passing orders dated 01.06.2016 directing respondent no.3-District Cooperative Officer, Kadapa to initiate action and also the validity of the report submitted by respondent no.5 in this writ petition and even otherwise in view of G.O.Ms.No.151, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, dated 20.06.2016, the respondent no.2 is competent to discharge the duties of Registrar under the provisions of the APMACS Act and further holding that since the petitioner himself expressed the willingness to face the criminal proceedings, no grounds exist for entertaining the writ petition; dismissed of the writ petition with costs as indicated in para-2 of this judgment.

4. The said order is assailed in this Writ Appeal on the grounds that the learned single Judge erred in coming to