ORDER : T. Madhavi Devi, J. W.P.No.33253 of 2023 has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari declaring the order of the Cooperative Tribunal at Warangal dt.03.11.2023 in C.T.A.No.6 of 2021 upholding the proceedings of respondent No.1, i.e., the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/District Cooperative Officer, Warangal Urban District in Rc.No.1353/2017-C dt.04.02.2021, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders. 2. W.P.No.31480 of 2024 has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in E.P.No.596/2020-21 and E.P.No.598/2020-21 in Form-7 of attachment of immovable property issued by the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, i.e., respondent No.1 without having any jurisdiction and without mentioning the proceedings of award and also the demand notice in Form-6 dt.30.09.2024 issued by respondent No.1 without considering the objection filed by the petitioner on 03.10.2024 under Rule 52(21)(a)(b)(c) of Telangana Cooperative Societies Rules and without any delegation of powers under G.O.Ms.No.1, Agriculture and Cooperative (Coop-II) Department dt.10.01.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions are one and the same and brief facts leading to the filing of both these Writ Petitions are as under. 4. The petitioner rendered service as the President of respondent No.8 cooperative society from 05.02.2013 to 04.02.2018 and according to the petitioner, a significant progress has been made in garnering of net profits during the said period. Subsequently, during the process of re-organisation of districts, Elkathurthy Mandal was taken away from Karimnagar District and was added to Warangal Urban District and since then, respondent No.1 had control and regulatory powers over the society. However, the affiliation of the society did not undergo any change and the Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Karimnagar continued to be the financing bank of the society. There was a physical verification of stocks of the society as on 30.09.2017 and certain irregularities and deficit in stocks of the society were noticed. Therefore, a special report was submitted in the matter. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was ordered to probe into the affairs of the society by appointing Sri V.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Assistant Registrar/Audit, Office of the District Cooperative Officer, Warangal Urban as enquiry officer who conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted his report recommending an enquiry under Section 51 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act , 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’). Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was ordered to probe into the affairs of the society by appointing Sri V.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Assistant Registrar/Audit, Office of the District Cooperative Officer, Warangal Urban as enquiry officer who conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted his report recommending an enquiry under Section 51 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act , 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’). Based on the said report, an enquiry was ordered under Section 51 of the Act duly authorising E. Venkateshwarlu, Assistant Registrar/Field, Kazipet Circle, Office of the District Cooperative Officer, Warangal Urban to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of respondent No.8 society. The enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was conducted and a report dt.04.06.2018 was submitted holding the petitioner herein and others as responsible for misappropriation of funds of the society to a total sum of Rs.2,51,55,550.14 and the petitioner individually was held to be responsible for a sum of Rs.9,18,500/-. Thereafter, a surcharge notice under Section 60 (1) of the Act was issued and surcharge orders have been passed vide separate proceedings dt.04.02.2021 holding the petitioner responsible for a sum of Rs.7,54,500/- and recovery of the said amount was ordered along with interest at 15% p.a. from the date of the misappropriation to the date of realisation and to restore the same to the funds of the society. Further, the petitioner and the CEO K.Vinay Kumar were jointly held responsible for a sum of Rs.1,45,56,850.51 along with interest. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed C.T.A.No.6 of 2021 before the Telangana Cooperative Tribunal at Warangal under Section 76(1) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal and against the same, W.P.No.33253 of 2023 has been filed. 5. Subsequently, a demand notice in Form-6 in E.P.No.596/ 2020-21 for recovery of Rs.7,54,500/- and another demand notice in Form-6 in E.P.No.598/2020-21 for recovery of Rs.1,45,56,850.51 with further interest and other charges, both dt.30.09.2024, have been issued, to which the petitioner submitted his objections on 03.10.2024. Thereafter, Form-7 dt.21.10.2024 in E.P.No.596/2020-21 has been issued to the petitioner for recovery of Rs.7,54,500/- and another Form-7 dt.21.10.2024 in E.P.No.598/2020-21 has been issued in respect of the petitioner herein and also in respect of one Sri K.Vinay Kumar, S/o Kommidi Prabhakar Reddy, i.e., the CEO of the society, for recovery of Rs.1,45,56,850.51. Challenging the above, W.P.No.31480 of 2024 has been filed. 6. Challenging the above, W.P.No.31480 of 2024 has been filed. 6. At the time of admission of W.P.No.31480 of 2024, this Court, vide orders dt.18.11.2024, has recorded the preliminary objection of the petitioner to the enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Act as well as to the surcharge proceedings of respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 has no authority to initiate enquiry under Section 51 of the Act either under G.O.Ms.No.10, Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.II) Department, dt.30.01.2017 or under G.O.Ms.No.1, Agriculture & Cooperation (Coop.II) Department, dt.10.01.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the consequential surcharge proceedings as well as issuance of Form-6 dt.30.09.2024 and issuance of Form-7 dt.21.10.2024 are liable to be set aside. This Court therefore was pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notices in Form-6 dt.30.09.2024 and Form-7 dt.21.10.2024 for a period of two weeks and thereafter, the interim order was extended from time to time till the matters have been heard. 7. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits. 8. The first and foremost objection of the writ petitioner is that vide G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.30.01.2017 in respect of the District Cooperative Central Banks, all powers of the Registrar under the Act, except those under Sections 4(2), 17, 18, 32(7), 34, 50, 64(1), 77, 86, 115,116, 116-A and 116-C and the powers of the Registrar under Rules 4, 12, 28, 29, 34(14), 39, 41, 45, 59 and 68 of the Rules made under the Act, are delegated to the District Collector; and in case of primary agricultural cooperative societies, the powers of the Registrar under Sub-section (1) of Section 116-C of the Act are delegated to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Special Cadre Deputy Registrars/Joint Registrar working as District Cooperative Officers. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the society being a primary agricultural cooperative society, the power of enquiry under Section 51 of the Act has not been delegated and therefore, it could have been ordered only by the Registrar and not by the Joint Registrar as was done in this case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in response to Form-6 issued by the respondents, the petitioner has submitted his objections raising this very ground, but the respondents have not considered the same and have issued Form-7 as well. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in response to Form-6 issued by the respondents, the petitioner has submitted his objections raising this very ground, but the respondents have not considered the same and have issued Form-7 as well. It is submitted that since there was a typographical mistake in G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.30.01.2017 in the delegation of powers, the respondents have issued G.O.Ms.No.1 dt.10.01.2024. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, when the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was ordered, the authority did not have the power to do so and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, on the other hand, submitted that originally, vide G.O.Ms.No.34, Food and Agriculture (Coop.IV) Department, dt.18.01.1989, the powers were delegated to the Joint Registrar, however, vide G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.30.01.2017, there occurred a typographical mistake and only the powers of the Registrar under Section 116-C of the Act were conferred on the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It is submitted that since there was some ambiguity as to whether the delegation of powers was in respect of the primary agricultural cooperative societies as well, to remove the ambiguity, G.O.Ms.No.1 dt.10.01.2024 has been issued and this was also necessitated due to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.4010 of 2024 dt.11.06.2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also participated in the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and has not taken any objection at the relevant point of time and therefore, he is estopped from taking such an objection at this stage. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned proceedings should not be set aside. 11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.30.01.2017 was with regard to the delegation of powers to the departmental authorities in view of the reorganisation of new districts and Serial No.2 of the notification mentions the powers of the Registrars conferred on the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Special Cadre Deputy Registrars/Joint Registrars working as District Cooperative Officers in respect of (i) District Cooperative Central Banks and District Cooperative Marketing Societies, (ii) Other District Level Societies and Societies whose area of operation extends to more than one district, (iii) Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies, (iv) Urban Banks regulated under the Banking Regulation Act. In Column No.3 of the said notification, the powers delegated in respect of the District Cooperative Central Banks and District Cooperative Marketing Societies and also other District Level Societies are specifically mentioned and against the primary agricultural cooperative societies, it was mentioned that only the powers of the Registrar under Sub-section (1) of Section 116-C of the Act subject to guidelines issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies are delegated. 12. In view thereof, this Court in W.P.No.4010 of 2024 has considered that G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.30.01.2017 did not delegate the power of the Registrar under Sections 51 and 60 of the Act to the Joint Registrar and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation had filed a counter affidavit and it was also recorded that the Government Pleader for Cooperation filed a counter affidavit submitting that there is a typographical error in the G.O. and that the powers are not delegated to the Cooperative Department officials in connection with the primary agricultural cooperative societies. It is noticed that soon after noticing the error, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.1 dt.10.01.2024 conferring powers on the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies for conducting enquiry under Section 51 of the Act into the affairs of the primary agricultural cooperative societies as well. 13. This Court finds that in this case, when the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was ordered by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the powers for the same were not delegated to him by the Registrar under G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.30.01.2017. Consequently, the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act as well as the surcharge proceedings thereunder are liable to be set aside with liberty to the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 51 of the Act afresh in accordance with law. 14. In view thereof, this Court also is of the considered opinion that the impugned enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and the consequential surcharge proceedings thereunder are not sustainable. Therefore, they are both set aside with liberty to the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the primary agricultural cooperative societies as per the provisions of the Act afresh. 15. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.8 society has relied upon the following judgments. (i) High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S. Patil and another , [ (2000) 1 SCC 416 ] (ii) Behari Prasad and others Vs. 15. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.8 society has relied upon the following judgments. (i) High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S. Patil and another , [ (2000) 1 SCC 416 ] (ii) Behari Prasad and others Vs. State of Bihar , [ (1996) 2 SCC 317 ] (iii) Airports Authority of India Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee , 2025 LawSuit(SC) 159 : (2025) 4 SCC 111 : 2025 AIR(SC) 1052 The said decisions are not applicable to this case. They are on merits of the case and are not applicable to the jurisdictional point raised by the petitioner which is being considered in this case. 16. Accordingly, W.P.No.33253 of 2023 is allowed with liberty to the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 51 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act , 1964 afresh. No order as to costs. 17. In view of the orders in W.P.No.33253 of 2023, the consequential impugned orders in W.P.No.31480 of 2024 are set aside. Accordingly, W.P.No.31480 of 2024 is allowed. No order as to costs. 18. In the result,— (i) W.P.No.33253 of 2023 is allowed with liberty to the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 51 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act , 1964 afresh. No order as to costs. (ii) W.P.No.31480 of 2024 is allowed. No order as to costs. 19. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.