THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1159 OF 2025 Mr. T. Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants.

Mr. K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (online). JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.28176 of 2025 filed by the respondent Nos.1-8/writ petitioners against the consequential effect of a G.O.Rt.No.386 dated 14.08.2025 issued by the Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.II) Department, Government of Telangana.

2. The appellant No.3/State-respondent initiated a proceeding on 12.09.2025 pursuant to the G.O and found that the existing Person-in-Charge Committee of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited (PACS), Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri Mandal, Jagtial District, to be unfit, unsuitable and non-performing for extension of tenure. Deputy Registrar/Audit Officer was appointed as an Official Person-in-Charge to manage the affairs of the society with effect from 15.08.2025, until further orders of the Government. The writ petitioners approached the Court praying for continuation of the present managing committee of PACS (PIC-Person-in-Charge) on the ground of violation under section 115-D(3)(b) of The Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (‘the Act, 1964’).

3. The learned Single Judge passed the impugned order containing several findings and granted interim protection to the petitioners along with a direction to the official respondents to continue the petitioners as PIC committee of the respondent society until further orders/till the elections are held/till the period under G.O.Rt.No.386 dated 14.08.2025 ends, whichever is earlier.

4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. We are of the considered view that since the writ petition itself was not disposed of but only interim protection was granted to the petitioners, there is no scope of interference with the order at this stage. The appellants seek to rely on several provisions of the Act, 1964 with regard to immediate discontinuation of the PIC upon their tenure coming to an end and also in view of the alleged serious financial illegalities committed by the PIC. However, we are of the view that the respondents/writ petitioners also have a case under section 56 of the Act read with sections 51 and 52, which provides for inquiry and inspection, costs of inquiry and inspection respectively. Section 56 mandates the affected persons to be given reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is passed against them. Since the Writ Petition has been made returnable before the learned Single Judge on 03.11.2025, we are additionally of the view that the appellants/State- respondents in the writ petition will have sufficient opportunity to agitate all points which are available to them in law before the learned Single Judge by way of a counter or otherwise. The appellants shall also be at liberty to seek recall/vacating of the impugned order. The appellants shall also be at liberty to seek recall/vacating of the impugned order. The Court is informed that the appellants shall take appropriate steps by 27.10.2025. In response to the apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General, we make it clear that the direction on the respondents shall not initiate contempt proceedings is only till

28.10.2025.

5. W.A.No.1159 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 25.10.2025

SUS