To maintain a writ petition under Article 226, a litigant must be a 'person aggrieved' with a direct and substantial infringement of a legally enforceable right; general grievances of society members regarding management do not automatically confer locus standi, especially when statutory remedies exist.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Akhil Ennamsetty, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Jurislit Law LLP, learned counsel for the appellants; Smt.B.Mohana Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5; and Sri S. Ramananda Swamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and perused the record.

2. This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.4072 of 2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application for leave filed by the appellants herein (writ petitioners Nos.2 to 29 in the writ petition) to prosecute the writ petition challenging the judgment of the Telangana Cooperative Tribunal in C.T.A.No.12 of 2023 dated 27.07.2024.

Factual matrix

3. The 4th respondent, Matrusri Cooperative House Building Society Limited, is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the provisions of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellants are stated to be long-standing members of the said Society. Elections to the Managing Committee of the Society were allegedly held on 18.01.2022, pursuant to which respondent No.6, Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, claimed to have been elected as the President of the Society along with certain other office-bearers.

4. The appellants and several other members of the Society alleged that the said elections were stage-managed and vitiated by fraud, forgery, impersonation and fabrication of records. According to them, some of their names and signatures were falsely shown in the election records as candidates, proposers and seconders without their knowledge or consent. In that regard, complaints were lodged before the competent authorities as well as before the police.

5. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the 2nd respondent ordered a statutory inquiry under Section 51 of the Act into the affairs of the Society. The Inquiry Officer, after examining the relevant records and statements, submitted a detailed Inquiry Report dated 03.05.2023 recording serious irregularities, including staged elections, falsification of records, non-conduct of mandatory General Body Meetings, non-submission of accounts and illegal alienation of the Society's properties.

6. Based upon the findings recorded in the Section 51 Inquiry Report, the 3rd respondent initiated proceedings under the Act and, by proceedings dated 22.07.2023, superseded the Managing Committee in exercise of powers under Section 34(1) of the Act and appointed an Official Administrator/Person-in-Charge to manage the affairs of the Society. Aggrieved by the supersession proceedings, the 6th respondent preferred C.T.A. No.12 of 2023 before the 5th respondent–Telangana Cooperative Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act.

7. The Cooperative Tribunal, by its judgment dated 27.07.2024, allowed the appeal and set aside the supersession proceedings solely on the ground that the Society was not in receipt of financial assistance from the Government and, therefore, did not fall within the ambit of Section 34 of the Act, which permits supersession only of aided societies. While doing so, the Tribunal did not advert to the findings recorded in Section 51 Inquiry Report regarding the alleged fraud and other irregularities.

8. Aggrieved thereby, Smt. C.Bhavani (respondent No.7 her