WP/1314/2026 of TANNEERU MOHAN RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 1 July 2026

1. TANNEERU MOHAN RAO, S/O. POLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 8-155, VADDIPALEM, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523225

2. PATAKOTTU VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. KOTI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 7-00, REDDY GARI BAZAR, GANGAVARAM, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523225.

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 503

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 006

3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PRAKASAM BHAVAN ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001

4. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, C-O-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PRAKASAM BHAVAN,

ONGOLE, PRAKASAM

DISTRICT-523001

5. THE DIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OLD GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001

6. THE SYNDICATE FORMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, SANTHANUTHALAPADU REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANTHANANTHANUTHALAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523225.

7. KUKATIA VIJAYAMMA, W/O. KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SYNDICATE FORMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SANTHANANTHANUTHALAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523225

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following order:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not considering the representation dated 05.01.2026 of the petitioners made against the respondent Nos.6 and 7 with regard to misusing the funds of the 6th respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 7th respondent who is the Chairperson of the 6th respondent-Society is misusing the funds of the

Society. The petitioners made a representation dated 05.01.2026 against the 7th respondent. However, respondent Nos.2 to 5 did not take any action against the 7th respondent. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation has placed before this Court a copy of the written remarks received from the 5th respondent dated 16.03.2026. A perusal of the same would reflect that, pursuant to the representation dated 05.01.2026 submitted by the petitioners, the 5th respondent conducted an enquiry into the records of the 6th respondent Society. During the course of verification and enquiry, the allegations made against the 7th respondent were found to be unsustainable and therefore, no action has been initiated. Thus, it is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is misconceived and is not maintainable.

5. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are members of the 6th respondent Society, being interested persons having entertained certain apprehensions relating to the manner in which the funds of the society were used and misused, particularly by the 7th respondent, complaints were made alleging misuse of the Society funds. Based on the said complaint, it appears that the competent authority conducted an enquiry into the allegations. However, the outcome of the said enquiry was not communicated to the petitioners, at whose instance, the enquiry was conducted. The principles of natural justice require that the complainant be informed of the outcome of the complaint that he has made.

6. Having regard to the above, the 5th respondent is directed to inform the petitioner, the action taken report, pursuant to the representation of the petitioners dated 05.01.2026, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date: 02.07.2026 BSK

Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned

Reportable

Non-reportable ☑

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 1314 OF 2026

Date: 02.07.2026 BSK