ORDER : Since, the subject matter of these two writ petitions, is interrelated and interconnected these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No.40370 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 4th Respondent in issuing impugned proceedings dated 26.10.2018 based on the resolution of the 2nd respondent dated 23.10.2018 which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, without any notice and without there being any authority of law and consequently set aside the Board Resolution No.NIL dated 30.10.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent and also declare that the Petitioner is entitled to continue as CEO/MD in the 2nd respondent Society and to pass such other order or orders…” 3. Writ Petition No.40450 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing impugned proceedings in Rc.No.01/2018-19 dated 06.11.2018 without conducting enquiry which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and without there being any authority of law and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.01/2018-19 dated 06.11.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to pass such other order or orders ….”. 4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is: (a) Petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-cashier in Respondent No.2 Society in the year 1990 through regular process of appointment. Petitioner was promoted as Field Inspector in the Society through proceedings in Ref.245/CRD/GEN/RO-KPD/2017, dated 11.05.2017. By resolution dated 01.09.2017, petitioner was appointed as CEO of Respondent No.2 Society. Respondent No.2 Society is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and was affiliated to Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank and presently the Society is affiliated to District Cooperative Central Bank, Kadapa. Petitioner pointed out defects and informed the same to the Divisional Co-operative Officer on 08.08.2018. In turn, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa issued letter to submit all the information and report compliance on the rectification of defects pointed out through his letter dated 01.09.2018. Petitioner pointed out defects and informed the same to the Divisional Co-operative Officer on 08.08.2018. In turn, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa issued letter to submit all the information and report compliance on the rectification of defects pointed out through his letter dated 01.09.2018. Since the petitioner made complaint, the President and other Board of Directors of Respondent No.2 by conducting Board meeting on 10.10.2018 and are making allegations against the petitioner and infact, passed unanimous resolutions. (a) The President of the Society by letter dated 11.10.2018 communicated resolution dated 10.10.2018 to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Kadapa. The Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa in its letter dated 12.10.2018, directed the Sub Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa to submit a report on the resignations of Managing Committee members. Though the President and other Board of Directors rendered the resignations they are conducting meetings and passing resolutions. By resolution dated 30.10.2018, it was resolved to appoint one M.V. Kishore Kumar, as CEO of Respondent No.2 Society by removing the petitioner. The said resolution was communicated to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, who, in turn, by letter RC.No.2716/2017-C dated 26.10.2018 advised the President of Managing Committee and Members of Respondent No.2 Society to proceed in the best interest of the Society as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, 1964 (for short ‘APCS Act & Rules’). (b) Challenging RC.No.2716/2017-C, Writ Petition No. 40370 of 2018 is filed. Pending W.P.No.40370 of 2018, petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 03.11.2018. In the show-cause notice, some irregularities were pointed out and petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within a period of three(3) days. Petitioner addressed a letter dated 06.11.2018 and requested to give four (4) more days to submit his explanation. However, vide proceedings Rc.No.01/2018-19 dated 06.11.2018, petitioner was suspended. In the suspension order it was also mentioned that petitioner will be paid allowance pending suspension. Aggrieved by the proceedings vide Rc.No.01/2018-19 dated 06.11.2018, W.P.No.40450 of 2018 is filed. 5. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2-Society. In the counter-affidavit, it was contended that the writ petition is not maintainable against Society. Society is not under the control of Government. No statutory violation by Respondent No.2 is complained of. Respondent No.2 Society is Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society at village level. 5. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2-Society. In the counter-affidavit, it was contended that the writ petition is not maintainable against Society. Society is not under the control of Government. No statutory violation by Respondent No.2 is complained of. Respondent No.2 Society is Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society at village level. Society issued nine (9) notices from 27.11.2017 to 18.09.2018 regarding the commissions and omissions in mismanaging the Society as CEO of the Society by the petitioner. New incumbent has not been shown as party respondent and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Society and learned Government Pleader. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was appointed as CEO of Respondent No.2 Society and the same was informed to the petitioner vide proceedings Ref.No.66/FSCS:DKDP/06/STF/2017, dated 01.09.2017. Since then, petitioner has been discharging his duties as CEO of Respondent No.2 Society. Since the petitioner pointed out irregularities of Management Committee, members of Committee, inturn, passed resolutions and sent the resolution for approval of District Co-operative Officer. The District Co-operative Officer in letter dated 26.10.2018, advised the President and Managing Committee of the society to proceed as per the provisions of APCS Act and Rules of 1964. He would also submit that Section 59 of the A.P Co-operative Societies Act prescribed the procedure of suspension of an officer of the Society. Society adopted Section 59 in its bye-laws. However, Respondent No.2 failed to follow the procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the Society failed to follow the Bye-laws, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable. He placed reliance upon Anakapally Rural Electric Cooperative Society Limited Vs. OKS Reddy, 2015 (1) ALD 146 . 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Society would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgement reported in Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Amalapuram vs. N. Seetharama Raju, AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 171. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner is not CEO and he is only an in-charge CEO. Since the petitioner is acting contrary to the interest of the Society, nine notices were issued to the petitioner. However, petitioner could not submit any explanation. Resolution dated 30.10.2018 was passed to appoint one M.V. Kishore as CEO. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner is not CEO and he is only an in-charge CEO. Since the petitioner is acting contrary to the interest of the Society, nine notices were issued to the petitioner. However, petitioner could not submit any explanation. Resolution dated 30.10.2018 was passed to appoint one M.V. Kishore as CEO. The said resolution was sent to Divisional Co-operative Officer, who in turn, advised President and Managing Committee and to act in the best interest of the Society and also as per the provisions of APCS Act and Rules of 1964. Petitioner was served with show-cause notice, dated 03.11.2018. However, petitioner failed to submit explanation and hence by proceedings vide Rc.No.01/2018-19, dated 06.11.2018, petitioner was suspended. Pending suspension, petitioner was superannuated. (d) Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that as per the application of advance, petitioner would have been superannuated by February, 2018. However, the same was refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner, who in turn, would submit that the petitioner would be superannuated by 28.02.2020 as per service records. 9. The points for consideration are : (1) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against Respondent No.2-Society? (2) Whether suspension of petitioner without giving sufficient time to submit explanation is sustainable? 10. In Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Limited case, (referred supra) the Full Bench of this Court summarized legal position at Para 51 as under: From the above discussion the following propositions emerge :- (i) If a particular co-operative society can it be characterised as a 'State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be an 'authority' within the meaning, and for the purpose, of Art. 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a Society against its employee in violation of the bye-laws, can be corrected by way of a writ petition. This is not because the bye-laws have the force of law, but on the ground that having framed the bye-laws prescribing the service conditions of its employees, the Society must follow them, in the interest of fairness. If it is left to the sweet will and pleasure of the Society either to follow or not to follow the byelaws, it would be inherently arbitrary,, and may very likely give rise to discriminatory treatment. If it is left to the sweet will and pleasure of the Society either to follow or not to follow the byelaws, it would be inherently arbitrary,, and may very likely give rise to discriminatory treatment. A society, which is a 'State', has to act in conformity with Art. 14 and, for that reason, it will be made to follow the bye-laws. (emphasis is mine) (ii) Even if a Society cannot be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Art.12, even so a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty which an employee is entitled to enforce against the Society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the Society is being treated as a 'person', or an 'authority', within the meaning of Art. 226 of the Constitution. What is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it, and the Court will enforce such, statutory public duty. (iii) The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act do not have the force of law. They are in the nature of contract, terms of contract, between the Society and its employees, or between the Society and its members, as the case may be. Hence, where a Society cannot be characterised as a 'State', the service conditions of its employees, governed by bye-laws, cannot be enforced through a writ petition. However, in the matter of termination of service of the employees of a co-operative society, S. 47 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act provides a certain protection, and since the said protection is based upon public policy, it will be enforced, in an appropriate case, by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Ordinarily, of course, an employee has to follow the remedies provided by the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act; but, in an appropriate case, this Court will interfere under Art. 226, if the violation of a statutory public duty is established. It is immaterial which Act or Rule casts such a statutory public duty. (iv) Mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition are public law remedies. They are not available to enforce private law rights. Every act of a society which may be a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12, does not necessarily belong to public, law field. It is immaterial which Act or Rule casts such a statutory public duty. (iv) Mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition are public law remedies. They are not available to enforce private law rights. Every act of a society which may be a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12, does not necessarily belong to public, law field. A society, which is a 'State', may have its private law rights just like a Government. A contractual obligations, which is not statutory, cannot be enforced by way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Prior to entering into contract, however, Art. 14 operates, as explained by the Supreme Court in E.E. & C. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, and Rarnana Dayaram Shetty. 11. In Sadhu Varahala Babu and others vs. Government of A.P. Co-operation Department and others, 2005 (5) ALT 126 , learned Single Judge at Para No.37 observed as under : “37. It now provides that every High Court shall have powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person, authority or Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto or any of them, for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose.” 12. As can be seen from the material placed before this Court, petitioner was appointed as CEO of Respondent No.2 Society. Petitioner being an employee of the Society, Managing Committee must follow the procedure contemplated under Section 59 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, if the Society intends to keep the petitioner under suspension. Bye-laws of the Society also manifest that the Society had to follow the procedure under Section 59 of the Societies Act. Bye-law number XXIV mandates that to suspend the employee or to reinstate the employee, Section 59 of the Act has to be adopted. 13. In the case on hand, notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.11.2018 pointing out irregularities and to submit explanation within a period of three days. Petitioner sought time of four more days by letter dated 06.11.2018. However, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner Managing Committee placed the petitioner under suspension on 06.11.2018. When certain irregularities were pointed, Committee could have issued four more days to the petitioner to submit explanation. Petitioner sought time of four more days by letter dated 06.11.2018. However, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner Managing Committee placed the petitioner under suspension on 06.11.2018. When certain irregularities were pointed, Committee could have issued four more days to the petitioner to submit explanation. This court is not going into the merit of the proceedings impugned i.e., keeping the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The process adopted by the society is nothing short of arbitrary. When show-cause notice was issued giving three days time, petitioner requested to provide four more days. Without affording such an opportunity, petitioner was kept under suspension. 14. Giving three days time to submit explanation and notwithstanding request of the petitioner to extend time by four more days, kept the petitioner under suspension, in the opinion of this Court, is illegal and arbitrary on the part of the Society. Opportunity should have been provided to the petitioner to meet the allegations in the show-cause notice. Apart from that, as can be seen from the suspension proceedings, Society failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 59 of the Societies Act. Since there is violation of Statute as also the byelaws and action of Committee is arbitrary, in view of expressions in the judgements refered supra, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is maintainable. Hence, this court holds that writ petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case is maintainable. 15. It was brought to the notice of the Court that pending writ petition, petitioner was superannuated on 28.02.2020. Pending writ petition no Interim Order was passed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was not paid, any benefits, pursuant to his superannuation. Learned Standing Counsel denied the same. This court deals with the aspect of suspension pending enquiry so hastly without affording opportunity to the petitioner in the above writ petition. Since this Court concludes that writ petition is maintainable and process adopted by Committee is arbitrary, the proceedings vide Rc.No.01/2018-19 dated 06.11.2018 are set aside. The Management Committee of Respondent No.2 Society shall follow the procedure according to the said law. Regarding benefits, if any, petitioner shall make representation and the same shall be considered by the Committee in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, the W.P.No.40370 of 2018 is allowed. 17. The Management Committee of Respondent No.2 Society shall follow the procedure according to the said law. Regarding benefits, if any, petitioner shall make representation and the same shall be considered by the Committee in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, the W.P.No.40370 of 2018 is allowed. 17. Since the proceedings issued in W.P.No.40370 of 2018 are set aside, no further orders need be passed in W.P.No.40450 of 2018 and hence, W.P.No.40450 of 2018 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.