An inspection order under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act must be founded on justifiable grounds within the order itself, not influenced by external parties.

ORDER:

T.Madhavi Devi, J.

In Writ Petition No.26692 of 2024, the petitioner society is challenging the proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 09.09.2024 for conduct of inspection of the books of accounts of the petitioner society under Section 52 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.27330, 27742, 27755 and 28153 of 2024 are all challenging the proceedings in Rc.Nos.2247/2024-C, 2252/2024-C, 2251/2024-C and 2247/2024-C, dated 25.09.2024 respectively issued by respondent No.3 purportedly exercising the powers under Section 21AA (1)(b) of the Act as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders.

W.P.No.26692 of 2024

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner in W.P.No.26692 of 2024 is the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society set up in Pegadapalli Village of Jagtial District. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 09.09.2024 has ordered an inspection under Section 52 (1) of the Act for inspection of the books of accounts of the petitioner society from the years 2014-2018 and 2018-2023 and the same is challenged in this Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said action of the respondent No.2 is not suo motu as mentioned in the impugned proceedings, but it is on the directions of the Government, which in turn has issued the directions at the behest of the ruling party MLA. It is submitted that under Section 52 of the Act, inspection can be ordered both suo motu or at the request of one of the creditor of the society and not even at the request of any member of the society, whereas in this case, the request was by the MLA of the ruling party who is neither a member or creditor of the society. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the respondent No.2 is biased and is at the behest of the third party and is therefore not sustainable.

5. This Court therefore, being satisfied about the prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, had granted interim suspension of the impugned notice and the same has been extended from time to time.

6. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 5 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 also has filed a separate counter affidavit justifying the issuance of the order under Section 52 (1) of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Government Memo No.5958/Coop.II/1/2024, dated 05.09.2024 of the APC and Secretary to Government, Telangana, Hyderabad, which in turn has referred to the request to conduct Vigilance/enquiry on (6) PACS and (2) DCMS of Jagitial District which included the petitioner society. In the said Government Memo, there was a reference to the letter of the MLA, Dharmapuri, dated 02.09.2024. It is submitted that it is clear therefrom, that the inquiry ordered in the impugned order is not suo motu, but it is only on the direction of the MLA and therefore, it is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 52 of the Act to demonstrate that the inspection can be ordered by the registrar only of his own motion or on the application of