Judgment :- This is an application to reopen C.c. No.919/2011 and punish the respondent for having committed contempt of Court with regard to order dated 8-12-2010 in W.P. No.14702/2010. The brief facts leading to the filing of this application are stated hereunder: The petitioners filed W.P. No.14702/2010 for a mandamus to declare the action of the government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, Deputy Secretary, General Administration (Service Welfare), Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies Department and others, for not initiating action against respondent No.8 therein i.e., the President, Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers’ Union (for short “the TNGOs’ Union”) on the representation dated 19-9-2008 made by petitioner No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the said respondents to prevent respondent No.8 from alienating or dealing in any manner in respect of any house site in the land to an extent of Ac.160-29 guntas in Sy.Nos.35 and 36 of Gopanapalle village, Ranga Reddy District. In the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, the petitioners averred that the TNGOs’ Union, headed by its President, has indulged in several commissions and omissions on various aspects including allotment of plots, development of layouts etc., and that despite the representation made by petitioner No.1, no action was taken against the office-bearers of the said Union responsible for those commissions and omissions. This Court, after hearing all the learned counsel, disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 8-12-2010 with the following observations and direction. “In my opinion, when certain allegations of commissions and omissions are brought to the notice of respondent No.1, in the matter of allotment of house sites, it is incumbent upon it to examine and take remedial steps if it finds truth in such allegations. Non-disposal of the petitioners’ representation dated 19-9-2008 cannot therefore be appreciated. Respondent No.1 is accordingly directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and take appropriate action if it is satisfied that any irregularities were committed in the matter of allotment of plots by respondent Nos.7 and 8, in accordance with law after notice to respondent Nos.7 and 8. Needless to observe that respondent No.1 will act expeditiously in this regard.” Alleging that the said order was not complied with, the petitioners filed C.C. No.919/2011 against the then Chief Secretary to the Government, Sri S.V. Prasad. Needless to observe that respondent No.1 will act expeditiously in this regard.” Alleging that the said order was not complied with, the petitioners filed C.C. No.919/2011 against the then Chief Secretary to the Government, Sri S.V. Prasad. The Chief Secretary filed his counter-affidavit wherein he has stated that on receipt of the representation of petitioner No.1, the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies was asked to hold an enquiry; that the Commissioner has informed the Government that he has no role to play in the matter as the relief claimed in the Writ Petition pertained to implementation of G.O. Ms.No.633, dated 17-11-1992 and that therefore the Government has requested the District collector, Ranga Reddy District to get the matter enquired into by the Joint Collector and submit his report within 15 days. It was further averred that the District collector, Ranga Reddy District vide his letter dated 4-8-2011 reported that the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District has conducted an enquiry by issuing notice to the Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers’ Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short “the Housing Society”) and others and thereafter the Joint Collector has submitted a status report requesting for two months’ time. The Chief Secretary has therefore requested for time for taking action as directed by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition. After the retirement of Sri S.V. Prasad, as the Chief Secretary, his successor Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, filed an additional counter-affidavit, wherein it was stated that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District has forwarded the preliminary enquiry report of the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District,; that on examining the said report it was found that appropriate decision cannot be taken as the Joint Collector-I did not give any specific findings with regard to the illegal allotments made by the Housing Society except to the extent that the President of the Housing Society, having enrolled himself as a member of the Housing Society, has three plots allotted in his name, one each at Kalvakurthy, Mahabubnagar and Mylardevpalli, Hyderabad Urban Taluk, Hyderabad; and that therefore it was decided to direct the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies to conduct a regular Departmental enquiry on the allegations and it was accordingly directed vide Memo No.39017/SW.II-A1/2008-16 dated 20-10-2011 to conduct a regular enquiry on the allegations and take appropriate action in the matter within one month. Upon taking note of the above noted contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavits, this Court has closed the Contempt Case by order dated 21-10-2011. The present application is filed to reopen the Contempt Case on the ground that despite the undertaking given by the Chief Secretary that the enquiry will be completed within one month and action taken, no such action was taken. Upon receiving notice in the Contempt Application, Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, the Chief Secretary to the Government, filed a counter-affidavit. He has pleaded that the Register of Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies, vide his proceedings dated 24-10-2011 ordered a statutory enquiry into the affairs of the Housing Society under Section 29 of the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (for short “the MACS Act”) authorizing the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad (U) to conduct an inquiry and that the District Co-operative Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted her report through letter dated 27-4-2012 to the former. It is further averred that on processing the inquiry report, a copy of the same was sent to the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad (U) through Memo dated 2-5-2012 of the Commissioner under Section 31 of the MACS Act with a request to her to direct the Housing Society to place the inquiry report before the General Body within 30 days on receipt of the same; that the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad (U) was authorized to bring the observations in the inquiry report to the notice of the General Body for necessary action as per Section 31 of the MACS Act for rectification of defects/irregularities as pointed out by the inquiry officer and that the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad (U) is further requested to take appropriate measures to safeguard the interests of the members of the Housing Society and report compliance. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that in respect of irregular allotment of plots as found in the inquiry report, the General Body of the Society has to take a decision in terms of the provisions of Section 20(2)(c)(5) of the MACS Act and that it the General Body fails to take action for cancellation of the irregular allotments and rectification of the defects, appropriate steps will be taken duly following the procedure. When the Contempt Application was heard on 14-6-20102, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Chief Secretary was silent on the action to be taken under Section 38 of the MACS Act. This Court has passed an order directing the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit on the said aspect. Accordingly, the Chief Secretary has filed an additional counter-affidavit wherein it is averred that the inquiry held under Section 29 of the MACT Act is akin to that under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Co-operative Societies Act”); and that a catena of Judgments of this Court held that no criminal case can be registered on the report submitted under Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act unless surcharge proceedings are initiated and an order passed under Section 60 thereof. The counter-affidavit, however, conceded that there is no provision in the MACS Act corresponding to Section 60 of the Co-operative Societies Act and that if no action is taken in the meeting of the General Body being convened on 24-6-2012, the Registrar will approach the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal under Section 31 of the MACS Act for recovery of the loss caused to the Housing Society. It needs to be borne is mind that the scope of this contempt application is limited to considering whether the successive Chief Secretaries of the Government have complied with the undertaking that appropriate action will be taken on completion of the inquiry as held out by them in their affidavits filed in C.C. No.919/2011. In order to decide this issue, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the MACS Act. Section 29 of the MACS Act empowers the Registrar to cause an inquiry to be made into the specific matter or matters relating to any gross violation of any of the provisions of the said Act by the co-operative society on an application of a federation to which the co-operative society concerned is affiliated, or of a creditor to whom the co-operative society is indebted, or of not less than one third of the Directors, or of not less than one tenth of the members. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Registrar shall communicate the same to the co-operative society concerned and various others as specified in sub clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (5) of Section 29. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Registrar shall communicate the same to the co-operative society concerned and various others as specified in sub clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (5) of Section 29. Section 31 inter alia envisages action on the inquiry report. Under this provision, on communication of the inquiry report, where it reveals mismanagement on the part of any or all of the office bearers or Directors, without prejudice to any civil or criminal proceedings to which they may be liable, the Registrar may direct the Board to convene a General Body meeting within such reasonable time as he may specify to enable him to bring to the notice of the General Body either directly or through his nominee the findings of the special audit or inquiry report for necessary action or approach the Co-operative Tribunal for necessary action. Under Section 33, the Co-operative Tribunal is empowered to order recovery of every item of expenditure incurred contrary to law from the person incurring or authorizing the incurring of such expenditure or held responsible in the inquiry report for any deficiency, loss or unprofitable outlay occasioned by his negligence or misconduct or of any such amount which ought to have been accounted, but is not brought into account by that person. Section 38 prescribes offences and penalties. Under sub-section (3) thereof, an offence by a co-operative society shall be deemed to have been also committed by each office bearer of the co-operative society bound by the bye-laws thereof to fulfill the duties whereof the offence is a breach, or if there is no such office bearer then by each of the Directors unless the office bearer or the Director proves to have attempted to prevent the commission of the offence. Under sub-section (4), an offence under the Section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. Under the proviso to Section 38, where a person is guilty of misappropriation, fraud, breach of trust, cheating or any other act involving moral turpitude, resulting in a loss to the co-operative society, he shall be punishable under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1960. Under the proviso to Section 38, where a person is guilty of misappropriation, fraud, breach of trust, cheating or any other act involving moral turpitude, resulting in a loss to the co-operative society, he shall be punishable under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1960. Having regard to the above noted provisions of the MACS Act, I do not find myself in agreement with the stand taken by the respondent that the provisions of Section 38 of the MACS Act cannot be invoked solely based on the inquiry report submitted under Section 29 thereof. The Judgments on which reliance is sought to be placed by the respondent were rendered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, which have no application to the present case for the reason that a separate provision is made thereunder in the form of Section 60 for passing a surcharge order, while concededly no such provision is envisaged under the MACS Act. That for invocation of Section 38 of the MACS Act, the inquiry report submitted under sub-section (5) of Section 29 thereof is enough, is clearly evident from the provisions of Section 31 which in unequivocal terms prescribe that the further action of placing the inquiry report before the General Body meeting and approaching the Co-operative Tribunal is without prejudice to any civil or criminal proceedings to be taken against the persons who are held responsible for the commissions and omissions. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad (U), in her expansive inquiry report running to 102 pages submitted under Section 29(5) of the MACS Act found the Managing Committee of the Housing Society having committed several illegalities. For the purpose of the present case, I refrain from delving into these details except to observe that the inquiry officer has indicted the Managing Committee of the Housing Society for several commissions and omissions, including large scale irregularities in the allotment of plots and various financial irregularities in entrusting the works relating to development of land to contractors without following a transparent process by calling for tenders by giving wide publicity etc. In my opinion, it is the bounden duty of the State and its agencies to take appropriate action in accordance with law, which includes prosecution of those who are responsible for the mismanagement of the Housing Society and various illegal acts found to have been committed in relation thereto in the inquiry report. I have no hesitation in my mind that these actions include the penal action as envisaged under Section 38 of the MACS Act. From the discussion undertaken above, I am of the opinion that the undertaking given by the respondent in his affidavits filed in the Contempt Case that appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken, is not fully complied with. However, I am inclined to give a benefit of doubt to the respondent as non-compliance with the said undertaking is obviously on account of incorrect appreciation of the scope of the provisions of Sections 29 and 38 of the MACS Act. Therefore, this Court hopes that the State Government will issue necessary instructions to the competent authority to initiate action in all respects under the provisions of the MACS Act against those who are found responsible in the inquiry report for the commissions and omissions, including prosecution under Section 38 of the MACTS Act. If such action is not taken within one month from today, the petitioners shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedies available to them in law. Subject to the above observations, the Contempt Application is disposed of.