ORDER: T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner society is challenging the notice issued by the respondent No.4 dated 12.05.2025 to pass a General Body Resolution for bifurcation of Gopayyapalli of Peddapally Mandal from its area of operation without considering the resolution passed by the petitioner society on 20.05.2025 requesting the respondent No.4 not to bifurcate of the village Gopayyapalli of Peddapally Mandal from the petitioner society, as illegal and arbitrary and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner society was formed as a Primary Fisheries Cooperative Society Limited about forty years ago. It is submitted that its members are eking out their livelihood through the fishing activities carried on in the ponds of Peddacheruvu and Potharaju Cheruvu under the jurisdiction of Palitham Society. It is submitted that earlier Palitham, Gopayyapally and Kasulapally villages formed one society with forty three members and were carrying on fishing activities in (i) Peddacheruvu; (ii) Potharaju Cheruvu; (iii) Chintal Cheruvu; (iv) Jangam Cheruvu and (v) Boorakunta Ponds/Tanks of Palitham Fisheries Society. It is submitted that the water in all the tanks other than Peddacheruvu, totally dried up in summer and only Peddacheruvu would have water even in summer for fishing activities and therefore, other tanks are low yielding fishing ponds. It is submitted that one Nerella Mondaiah filed W.P.No.20719 of 2023 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 to consider his representation and to bifurcate the fishermen society and assign the Peddacheruvu in Gopayyapalli village for their fishing rights and the respondent No.4 herein had filed a counter affidavit to the effect that if Peddacheruvu is removed from the jurisdiction of the petitioner society, then the members of the society would lose their livelihood and therefore, it is not possible to bifurcate both the societies. It is submitted that this Court without going into merits of the case had disposed of the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.20719 of 2023 on 23.04.2025 directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and pursuant thereto, the respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice dated 12.05.2025 directing the petitioner society to pass a General Body Resolution for the bifurcation of Gopayyapali village from its area of operation. It is submitted that upon receipt of notice, the petitioner society had conducted a General Body Meeting on 20.05.2025 and again resolved not to bifurcate the petitioner society on the ground that the petitioner society will lose the livelihood of their society members. However, without considering the said resolution, the respondent No.4 is trying to proceed with bifurcation of the society under the premise of implementation of the orders of this Court inW.P.No.20719 of 2023 and if the same is done, the members of the petitioner society would lose their prospects of livelihood. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the resolution of the General Body of society dated 20.05.2025 and also the averments of respondent No.4 in his counter affidavit in W.P.No.20719 of 2023, to the effect that the fish production is available only in Peddacheruvu of Gopayyapally village and that the other four tanks of Palitham village have less or no water in Summer and are therefore low yielding tanks and that all the members are dependent upon Peddachervu for their livelihood and there will be no viability to the parent society if it is divided. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the respondents in trying to bifurcate the society now is illegal and arbitrary. 4. At the time of admission, this Court had directed the respondents to file a feasibility and viability report on the bifurcation of the Gopayyapally village from the Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, Palitham village of Peddapalli District. The report dated 21.08.2025 has been filed stating that there are four tanks under the Palitham and Kasulapalli villages with a total area of 70-35 Acres and only one Peddacheruvu is in Gopayyapalli village with 39-09 Acres. The report dated 21.08.2025 has been filed stating that there are four tanks under the Palitham and Kasulapalli villages with a total area of 70-35 Acres and only one Peddacheruvu is in Gopayyapalli village with 39-09 Acres. It is also stated that in view of the availability of water bodies in Palitham, Kasulapalli and Gopayyapalli Villages, there will be no effect on the viability of the Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, Palitham, if Gopayyapalli village is deleted from the area of operation of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Palitham, as an area of 70-35 Acres of water spread area is available for twenty four members of Palitham village and Gopayyapalli village is having only eighteen existing members and six un-enrolled persons fulfilling the norms of member society and therefore, the Gopayyapalli village can be deleted from the area of operation of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Palitham. As regards the viability of the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Palitham, after the deletion of Gopayyapalli village from its area of operation, it is submitted that all the four tanks existing in Palitham and Kasulapalli Villages are filled with water, having a total water spread area of 79-35 Acres with an SRSP canal connection and are sufficient for the left over twenty four members of Palitham village fulfilling the one member/one acre water spread area norm. Therefore, it is recommended for bifurcation of the area of operation of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Palitham and formation of a new society of Gopayyapalli village and enclosed therewith, a certificate dated 12.5.2025 endorsing that all the four tanks are connected to the SRSP canal and therefore, water spread area is available throughout the year. Similarly, with regard to the Peddacheruvu also it is stated that water is available throughout the year. The list of members to be enrolled in Gopayyapalli Village of Peddapalli Mandal is also enclosed therewith. 5. The learned government pleader for fisheries appearing for the respondent No.4 and learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 have relied upon the averments of respondents the respective counter affidavits supporting the above feasibility and viability report. The list of members to be enrolled in Gopayyapalli Village of Peddapalli Mandal is also enclosed therewith. 5. The learned government pleader for fisheries appearing for the respondent No.4 and learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 have relied upon the averments of respondents the respective counter affidavits supporting the above feasibility and viability report. It is stated that since the parent society Fishermen Cooperative Society, Palitham, has not cooperated for bifurcation as per the provisions of 12(1)(b) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, the procedure contemplated under Sections 15(A) and 16(5) has to be followed and steps have to be taken to bifurcate the Gopayyapalli village from the area of operation of the petitioner society in accordance with the above provisions. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that at present, the petitioner society has a total of 110 Acres of water spread area and if the bifurcation is to be made as per the request of the respondent No.5, the petitioner society would be left with 70-35 Acres and the consequential Gopayyapalli village would have 39-09 Acres as certified by the Tahasildar and both the societies would have water spread throughout the year. Though it is not disputed that the petitioner society has passed a resolution rejecting the request for bifurcation, this Court finds that the procedure thereafter would be as prescribed under Section 15(A)(1) and 16(5) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act which are as follows: Section 15-A. Identification of Viability of Societies and Consequences thereof: (1)Notwithstanding anything in this Act or the rules made thereunder or the bye-laws of the society concerned, if the Registrar is of the opinion that 4[in respect of a society or societies in receipt of State aid as specified under section 43 of the Act] it is necessary to amalgamate or merge any society with any other such society or to divide and restrict or transfer the area of operation of a society or to liquidate a society for any of the following purposes, namely:- (a) for ensuring economic viability of any or all the societies concerned; or (b) for avoiding overlapping or conflict of jurisdictions of societies in any area; or (c) for securing proper management of any society; or (d) in the interest of the co-operative movement in general and of co-operative credit structure in particular in the State taken as a whole; or (e) for any other reason in the public interest, he may identify the viable and non-viable societies which may be retained or divided with consequential restriction of the area of operation or the transfer of such area or amalgamated or liquidated, as the case may be, and may by a notification to be published in the prescribed manner, specify the area of operation of each society or societies to be retained divided or amalgamated with any other society indicated in the said notification and invite objections or suggestions from the societies or any members, depositors, creditors, employees or other persons concerned with the affairs of each such society to be received within twenty one days from the date of publication of the notification. Section 16.Amendment of bye-laws of a society: (1) **** (2) **** (3) **** (4) **** (5) If in the opinion of the Registrar, an amendment of the bye-laws of a society is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society or of the co-operative movement, he may, in the manner prescribed, call upon the society, to make any amendment within such time as he may specify. If the society fails to make such an amendment within the time so specified the Registrar may, after giving the society an opportunity of making its representation, register such amendment and forward to the society by registered post a copy of the amendment together with a certificate signed by him; such a certificate shall be conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered; and such an amendment shall have the same effect as an amendment of any bye-law made by the society. 7. That, this Court while hearing W.P.No.20719 of 2023 it was brought to the notice of this court that the General Body resolutions have already been passed rejecting the request for bifurcation of the society. However, this Court had directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. This Court finds that the feasibility and viability report dated 21.08.2025 has been submitted before this Court and the objection, if any of the petitioner society to the same have not been called for and were not considered in accordance with law. The respondent No.4 has already issued a notice and the petitioner society has submitted its explanation along with a resolution but they were prior to the feasibility and viability report. Therefore, the Registrar is now required to call for objections of the petitioner society and consider its objections, if any and thereafter take a decision under Sections 15(A) and 16(5) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and the respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with the above direction. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.