AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J. ( 1 ) BY consent of both the parties the writ appeal is taken up for hearing and disposed of at the admission stage. ( 2 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against a judgment dated 16/04/2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No. 253 of 2000 allowing the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE respondents in the writ petition are the appellants herein. The writ petition was filed by a Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society of Pillaipally Village of Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District seeking a writ of mandamus for issuance of a direction to call for the records relating to proceedings in Cr. No. 21719/98/ CPE/e1, dated 31-3-1999 and 26-4-1999, and Rc. No. 6844/co-op/95-96 dated 3-1-2000 and to quash them as illegal. ( 4 ) THE complaint of the writ petitioner is that, in pursuance of a representation filed by a local MLA dated 17-11-1998, the first appellant herein, by proceedings dated 31-3-1999 had directed the second and third appellants herein to conduct fair and impartial enquiry into the allegations made by the MLA and submit a report. Any by proceedings dated 26-4-1999, the first appellant also directed the 2nd and 3rd appellants to remove certain members of the Society and to admit new members, and ultimately passed the present impugned proceedings dated 3-1-2000 exercising his jurisdiction under Section 34 (1) of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, superseding the managing committee and appointing a person-in-charge on the ground that inspite of the directions given by the Registrar for exclusion and inclusion of certain members and also issuance of show-cause notice, the same have not been adhered to by the managing committee and thus there were discrepancies and violations in compliance with the orders. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, the persons who are directed to be admitted as members are not actually tappers and they do not belong to Gowda Community and that there cannot be any such direction by the authorities. According to the writ petitioner, it is the exclusive prerogative of the Society to consider and take decision with regard to the membership and, therefore such an action interdicting the powers of the society makes inroads into its independence and further it cannot constitute a ground for super session under Section 34 (1) of the Act. According to the writ petitioner, it is the exclusive prerogative of the Society to consider and take decision with regard to the membership and, therefore such an action interdicting the powers of the society makes inroads into its independence and further it cannot constitute a ground for super session under Section 34 (1) of the Act. ( 6 ) WE have perused Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act. It says that action can be initiated for super session of the committee if in the opinion of the Registrar, the Committee is not functioning properly or wilfully disobeys or fails to comply wilfully with any lawful order or direction issued by the Registrar under the Act or the rules. ( 7 ) A perusal of the order dated 3-1-2000 would clearly shows that the Registrar has not received any compliant against the society regarding its improper functioning and that he was also not of the opinion that the Committee was not functioning properly or that it had wilfully disobeyed any of its directions. The dispute only relates to admission of 16 members of the society as they had completed all formalities as per the procedure laid down. According to the writ petitioner they are not the tappers and they do not belong to Gowda Community and, therefore, they are not eligible to be admitted as members of the society. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, the Functional Registrar has no jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice under Section 34 Sub-clause (1) of the Act to the President and Managing Committee of the society to supersede the same. ( 8 ) AS pointed out earlier, the society can be superseded only for wilfully disobedience to receive the lawful orders issue by the authorities concerned. In the instant case the dispute relates to the admission of 16 members which cannot be any stretch of imagination be considered as disobedience of the directions issued by the authorities concerned. There is no dispute that the licence of the society is valid upto 31-9-2001 which was initially given for a period of 5 years on 14-9-1996. The specific case of the petitioner is that it is only at the instance of the local MLA and on his representation dated 17-11-1998 that the appellants-respondents have initiated the proceedings. There is no dispute that the licence of the society is valid upto 31-9-2001 which was initially given for a period of 5 years on 14-9-1996. The specific case of the petitioner is that it is only at the instance of the local MLA and on his representation dated 17-11-1998 that the appellants-respondents have initiated the proceedings. Even on an earlier occasion, a show-cause-notice dated 1-10-1996 was given for admission of certain new members and on failure of which, the Committee was superseded which was challenged in WP No. 2227 of 1996. Meanwhile, the order of super session was passed on 30-1-1997 leading to filing of another writ petition WP No. 2591 of 1997. These two writ petitions were disposed of on 17-10-1996 and 4-9-1997 respectively by this Court directing the writ petitioner-Society to approach the appellate authority, whereupon, fresh orders were passed on 15-12-1997 reiterating the very same stand and again the writ petitioner had filed WP No. 302 of 1998 and 3460 of 1998 which were also disposed of by orders dated 10-3-1998. In these two writ petitions, this Court had held that the rejection of the claim of a person for membership on the ground of pendency of criminal case is not a valid ground unless there is conviction and, therefore, the impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits. Before the learned single Judge, certain decisions of this Court were also cited wherein this Court has held that the matter of admission of members is the exclusive prerogative of the society and the law contemplates both by the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws, a detailed procedure in regard thereto and the same cannot be taken over by the authorities. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, by the impugned order dated 3-1-2000, the society which was functioning properly has been superseded in the absence of any other valid reason or material in support thereof affecting its administration. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the order passed by the authorities superseding the regular functioning of the society is a serious matter and cannot be lightly resorted to for any reasons other than those mentioned in Section 34 (1) of the Act. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the learned Judge is right in allowing the writ petition as prayed for. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the learned Judge is right in allowing the writ petition as prayed for. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.