Judgment : Since both these Writ Petitions relate to the same Co-operative Society, they are heard and being disposed of together. For convenience, the respondents are referred to as arrayed in WP.No.21493 of 2011. The petitioners in WP.No.21493 of 2011 were elected as President, Secretary and Directors of respondent No.3-Society in the election held on 08-10-2010. An inquiry under Section 29 (2) of the A.P. Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) was instituted. The Divisional Co-operative Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On 31-05-2011, the inquiry Officer submitted his report to respondent No.2-Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies wherein he has pointed out the illegality in continuing the Committee after 02-02-2003 and made certain requests and suggestions to the Registrar, which include appointment of Adhoc Committee for the purpose of conducting elections. Basing on the said report, respondent No.3, in purported exercise of her power under Section 23 (3) of the Act, ordered convening of General Body Meeting on 31-07-2011 for appointing an Adhoc Board for the specific purpose of conducting elections to respondent No.3-Society and to enable and initiate follow up action on the findings in the inquiry report and the recommendations made by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department in their report. Feeling aggrieved by this Order, the petitioners filed WP.No.21493 of 2011. WP.No.29040 of 2011 is filed by three of the elected Directors of respondent No.3-Society for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct elections for the posts of 3 Directors of the said Society by convening General Body Meeting as per law and to declare the acts done by respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are petitioners Nos.2, 5 and 6 in WP.No.21493 of 2011, as Directors of respondent No.3-Society even after expiry of their term, as void. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter-affidavit wherein she sought to justify the order passed by her which is impugned in WP.No.21493 of 2011. At the hearing Mr. J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.21493 of 2011, submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is wholly without jurisdiction. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter-affidavit wherein she sought to justify the order passed by her which is impugned in WP.No.21493 of 2011. At the hearing Mr. J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.21493 of 2011, submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is wholly without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel submitted that when a report under Section 29 of the Act is submitted by the inquiry officer, under Section 31 of the Act, respondent No.3 is empowered only to either direct the Board to convene a General Body Meeting to enable her to bring to the notice of the General Body either directly or through her nominee the findings of the inquiry report for necessary action or approach the Cooperative Tribunal for necessary action. According to the learned Counsel, the contents of the inquiry report need to be considered by the General Body and an appropriate decision shall be taken thereon and that if, for any reason, respondent No.3 is not satisfied with the action taken by the General Body on the inquiry report, the only alternative left to her is to approach the Co-operative Tribunal for necessary action. I find merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Section 31 of the Act reads as under: “Action on special audit or inquiry report: On communication of a special audit report under sub-section (5) of Section 28 or an inquiry report under sub-section (5) of section 29 to the persons concerned, the Registrar may, where the special audit or inquiry report reveals mismanagement on the part of any or all the office bearers or Directors, without prejudice to any civil or criminal proceedings to which they may be liable: (a) 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 (b) approach the Co-operative Tribunal for necessary action.” As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.21493 of 2011, respondent No.3 has no power to enforce the inquiry report. She is only empowered under Section 31 (a) of the Act to direct the Board to convene a General Body meeting and to bring to the notice of the General Body either herself or through her nominee for necessary action on the inquiry report, besides approaching the Cooperative Tribunal for necessary action. This being the undisputed legal position, respondent No.3 has far too exceeded her jurisdiction in assuming the role of the General Body or the Co-operative Tribunal and giving effect to the inquiry report. Reference to the provisions of Section 23 (3) of the Act in the impugned order by respondent No.3 is wholly misplaced. The said provision deals with holding of elections and respondent No.3 will step in only, if the elected Board does not take necessary steps to conduct elections before the expiry of its term, and can give necessary directions for convening General Body for the constitution of adhoc board for holding elections. Such a situation does not exist in the present case because even according to the inquiry officer, elections were held but they were not duly held. This aspect, as observed above, needs to be decided either by the General Body or by the Cooperative Tribunal. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order impugned in WP.No.21493 of 2011 cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, set aside. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.3 to act strictly in terms of Section 31 of the Act, the purport of which was explained above. W.P.No.21493 of 2011 is allowed accordingly. As regards the prayer in WP.No.29040 of 2011, since the very validity of the elections is disputed by the inquiry officer, the same needs to be discussed in the General Body meeting. The issues raised by the petitioners shall also be kept as an item of agenda in the General Body meeting to be convened by the Board of Directors. Subject to the above direction, WP.No.29040 of 2011 is disposed of. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.