ORDER A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal, at Vijayawada in MA No. 35 of 2014 in OA No. 69 of 2014 whereby the order dated 2.8.2014 passed by the second respondent in Rc. No. 932/2014 was suspended pending disposal of the OA. The fourth respondent herein was elected as President of the Komminenivaripalem Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short 'the Society') and the petitioner was elected as Vice-President. Alleging that the fourth respondent has not conducted Managing Committee meetings regularly, the third respondent after conducting an enquiry, issued a show-cause notice to the fourth respondent. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the fourth respondent on 28.7.2014, the third respondent passed orders under Section 32(3) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for brevity 'the Act') and Rule 23(2) of the A.P. Co-operative Society Rules (for short 'the Rules') read with Section 32-B of the Act in Rc. No. 932/2014, dated 2.8.2014 holding that the fourth respondent is ceased to be the President of the Society as he failed to convene Management Committee meetings for a period of three months from 31.7.2013 to 31.10.2013 and again upto 30.11.2013, i.e., for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent filed OA No. 69 of 2014. Along with the said OA, he also filed MA No. 35 of 2014 seeking suspension of the proceedings dated 2.8.2014. The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, at Vijajaywada, by impugned order dated 22.8.2014 suspended the operation of the order passed by the third respondent dated 2.8.2014 pending disposal of OA. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent after following the due procedure issued show-cause notice to the fourth respondent on 14.7.2014 and after considering the explanation submitted by him on 28.7.2014 passed order under Section 32(3) of the Act and Rules made thereunder disqualifying the fourth respondent to hold the post of President of the Society as he failed to convene Management Committee meetings. It is contended that the fourth respondent casted his vote twice under Bye-law No. 16(A) of the Society though there was no quorum, which is not relevant for the context of constituting quorum and it pertains to General Body Meeting. It is further submitted that though the third respondent has categorically held that the fourth respondent has failed to issue notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act to convene Managing Committee meetings and there was no requisition for convening the meeting as contemplated under Section 32(2), 32(3) and 32(4) of the Act, however the Tribunal granted interim suspension of the operation of the order dated 2.8.2014. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the aspect of quorum as envisaged under Rule 23(2) of the Rules, which contemplates that the quorum is the majority of the total members of the Committee. It is also contended that as per the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder, it is the duty of the President of the Society to convene meeting and the Registrar has no role to play in regard thereto. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal, the third respondent already issued proceedings in Rc. No. 932/2014, dated 25.8.2014 for continuance of the fourth respondent as President of the Society. He contended that the fourth respondent convened the meetings as per the provisions of the Act, but, as there was no quorum, he casted his vote by virtue of Bye-law No. 16-A of the Society. He further submitted that though the fourth respondent submitted his explanation pursuant to the show-cause notice issued to him, however, the third respondent without considering the same in the proper perspective passed orders dated 2.8.2014 disqualifying him from holding the post of President of the Society. He also contended that the Tribunal while holding that the issues as to whether necessary requisition was issued to conduct meetings and whether proper and requisite notice was issued to other members of the Committee will be decided in the main OA, rightly suspended the proceedings dated 2.8.2014. 5. He also contended that the Tribunal while holding that the issues as to whether necessary requisition was issued to conduct meetings and whether proper and requisite notice was issued to other members of the Committee will be decided in the main OA, rightly suspended the proceedings dated 2.8.2014. 5. In the instant case, the fourth respondent was disqualified to hold the post of President of the Society as per proceedings of the third respondent dated 2.8.2014 on the ground that he failed to convene the meetings as per Section 32(2) of the Act and that he also voted twice. The case of the petitioner is that no requisition for convening the meeting as contemplated under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act was issued by the fourth respondent and further no requisite notice was issued to the other members of the Committee. It is to be seen that since the OA preferred by the fourth respondent is pending consideration, the Tribunal will go into the aforesaid aspects of the matter and in fact the Tribunal in the order impugned in the writ petition observed to that effect. However, it is to be seen from Paragraph 2 of the impugned order, wherein the counter of the first respondent therein (third respondent herein) noticed that the Managing Committee meeting was conducted on 10.8.2013 and 18.11.2013 but without quorum. The Tribunal while recording that the issues as to whether requisition as per Section 32(4) of the Act was issued to conduct Committee meeting and whether notice was issued to the members of the Committee will be decided during the course of inquiry in the main OA, prima facie found that Managing Committee meetings were convened within the statutory period, but could not be conducted due to lack of quorum. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits or otherwise of the impugned order since the main OA preferred by the fourth respondent is pending consideration. I do not see any valid ground to entertain the writ petition at this stage. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, at Vijayawada is directed to dispose of OA No. 69 of 2014 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, at Vijayawada is directed to dispose of OA No. 69 of 2014 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed