ORDER : T. Madhavi Devi, J. W.P.No.29424 of 2025 is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in taking action on the petitioners’ complaint submitted on 28.08.2025 against respondent No.4-society as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and as violative of Cooperative Societies Act and consequently to direct respondent No.2 to take appropriate action with immediate effect against the Managing Committee of respondent No.4-soceity and consequently to stay the conduct of the General Body Meeting of respondent No.4-society scheduled to be held on 28.09.2025 or any other subsequent date, pending proceedings of respondent No.2 vide RC.No.2569/2025-HR2, dated 20.08.2025 under Section 34(1)(b) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”) or in the alternative direct respondent No.2 to appoint a Special Officer to conduct the proposed General Body Meeting of respondent No.4-society scheduled on 28.09.2025 and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the specific attention of this Court to the petitioners’ complaint dated 28.08.2025 submitted to respondent No.2 in respect of show cause notice dated 19.08.2025 received from respondent No.4-society proposing the expulsion of the petitioners from the society under Section 23 of the Act. It was submitted that the issue of disqualification of the society Governing Body was already pending before this Court in W.P.No.9335 of 2025 and in W.P.No.7642 of 2024 and therefore, during the pendency of such writ petitions, the respondents ought not to have issued the show cause notices to the petitioners and others, particularly when Agenda No.8 of the General Body Meeting held on 04.08.2024 was subject to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.15677 of 2024. Therefore, the petitioners requested the Commissioner to take action under Section 34 of the Act, to supersede the existing governing body of the society, constitute a PIC committee and seize the files, accounts/activities of the society without further delay. When no action was taken on their complaint dated 28.08.2025 and respondent No.4 society was proceeding to hold the General Body Meeting on 28.09.2025 with an agenda to expel the petitioners and others from the membership of the society, the petitioners preferred this Writ Petition. When no action was taken on their complaint dated 28.08.2025 and respondent No.4 society was proceeding to hold the General Body Meeting on 28.09.2025 with an agenda to expel the petitioners and others from the membership of the society, the petitioners preferred this Writ Petition. At the time of admission of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to the agenda of the General Body Meeting to be held on 28.09.2025, wherein item No.6 was “to discuss about the removal of members who were obstructing the work of the society, its registrations and causing financial loss to the society and to terminate their membership”; and item No.9 was pertaining to “discussion of 2025-29 elections and to take a decision thereon”. 3. This Court, being prima facie satisfied, directed that any resolution in respect of Item No.6 of the agenda shall be subject to the outcome of this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in response to the show cause notice dated 19.08.2025, the petitioners and others submitted their explanations/representations, but holding that petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.29424 of 2025 has not submitted his explanation and the explanations submitted by the other members were not satisfactory, a resolution was proposed to be passed by the General Body removing the petitioners from the membership of the society. Thereafter, the respondents have proceeded to conduct the General Body meeting on 28.09.2025 and in respect of item No.6 of the agenda, passed a resolution removing the members from the membership of the society invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, and a communication dated 25.10.2025 was issued to the said effect. Challenging the termination of the membership and seeking immediate restoration, the petitioners and others filed applications under Section 61 of the Act before respondent No.2 on 03.11.2025 and challenging the inaction on the said application, W.P.Nos.34351, 34764, and 34765 of 2025 have been filed. Seeking a declaration that the efforts of respondents No.2 and 3 in W.P.No.34627 of 2025 for issuing Election Notification to respondent No.4 Managing Committee for the forthcoming period 2026-2030 without passing orders on the representation of the petitioners on 04.11.2025 for rectification of voters list by including the petitioner’s names and deleting the ineligible voters, as illegal and arbitrary, W.P.No.34627 of 2025 has been filed. 5. 5. Since the issues were interlinked, all the writ petitions were clubbed with W.P.No.29424 of 2025 and the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common and consolidated order. 6. Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Uma Devi Nama, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.29424, 34764 and 34765 of 2025 and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34351 and 34627 of 2025, Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Prateek Reddy, learned counsel for Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for the official respondents, appeared and advanced their respective arguments. 6.1 Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Uma Devi Nama, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.29424, 34764 and 34765 of 2025, submitted that the Managing Committee of respondent No.4-society has committed various irregularities and illegalities and therefore, several representations were made to the Registrar, consequent to which an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was conducted, and a report dated 09.10.2023 was submitted by the Assistant Registrar, DCO, Shamshabad, bringing out various irregularities committed by the society and the action under the same is awaited and in the meantime, in order to prevent the petitioners from raising issues or taking action against the Managing Committee, respondent No.4-society issued show cause notices dated 19.08.2025 and 16.09.2025 and convened a General Body Meeting solely with the agenda to remove the petitioners from the membership of the society on the ground of obstruction of the work of the society, its registrations and causing financial loss to the society. It is submitted that though all the petitioners have submitted their explanations for the show cause notices, the same were not considered and the General Body of the society passed a resolution terminating the membership and that the said resolution was forwarded to the authority for approval, but the Registrar has not yet given the approval. It is submitted that the show cause notices issued to all the petitioners only make general allegations that they have indulged in the activity of obstruction and caused financial loss and also tarnished the image of the society. It is also alleged that the petitioners have approached the Court and authorities by making several representations making false allegations. It is submitted that the show cause notices issued to all the petitioners only make general allegations that they have indulged in the activity of obstruction and caused financial loss and also tarnished the image of the society. It is also alleged that the petitioners have approached the Court and authorities by making several representations making false allegations. It is submitted that only in the case of petitioner No.1, an additional allegation is made that he has taken active role in demolition of six additional row houses constructed by the society and thus caused financial loss to the society. He submitted that the show cause notices do not refer to any specific acts of obstructions by the petitioners nor the quantum of the financial loss said to have been caused by the petitioners. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the show cause notices are ex facie illegal and unsustainable. 6.2 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court to the representations submitted by the petitioners to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 10.11.2025 and 04.11.2025 respectively, wherein the relevant facts and circumstances leading to the statutory enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and the findings therein have been brought out. In the said representation, the earlier acts of misconduct, misappropriation and irregularities committed by the Managing Committee have been brought out. It is submitted that, harboring a personal grudge against the petitioners for having exposed these irregularities, the membership of the petitioners has been terminated and a letter dated 25.10.2025 has been issued informing about the termination of their membership in the society. It is submitted that only the Registrar, under Section 61 of the Act, has the power to decide the disputes arising between a member and the society or its Managing Committee touching upon the constitution, management or business of the society. It is submitted that only the Registrar, under Section 61 of the Act, has the power to decide the disputes arising between a member and the society or its Managing Committee touching upon the constitution, management or business of the society. Therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioners falls within the ambit of Section 61 of the Act and therefore, it was prayed that appropriate direction be given to respondent No.2 to take action on the applications filed under Section 61 of the Act, to set aside the termination of membership and to direct restoration of the membership of the society and also to take action against for supersession of the Managing Committee under Section 34(1) of the Act and to take consequential action as deemed fit under the Act. 6.3 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order of this Court dated 25.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.7642 of 2024, which was filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to take action on the report of the Assistant Registrar/Field Officer, Shamshabad Circle, dated 09.10.2023, on the several irregularities committed by the present Managing Committee wherein, this Court had directed respondent No.2 therein to examine the said report dated 09.10.2023 submitted by the Assistant Registrar/Field Officer, Shamshabad Circle of the respondent No.3 and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all interested persons and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 08.04.2025 in W.P.No.9335 of 2025, wherein the memo dated 04.02.2025 observing that a Five Men Committee will be looking into report dated 09.10.2023 was set aside and the Registrar was directed to issue fresh proceedings pursuant to the report dated 09.10.2023 and to take action in accordance with law. 6.5 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that a General Body Meeting was scheduled on 04.08.2024 and the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15677 of 2024 and vide order dated 30.07.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2024, this Court had permitted respondent No.2 therein to proceed with the General Body Meeting of respondent No.4-society scheduled on 04.08.2024 or any other subsequent day/days, under the supervision of the officer/representative nominated by the District Cooperative Officer. It was also observed that any decision taken in the said General Body Meeting shall not be given effect to pending further orders. It is submitted that the said writ petition is still pending decision by this Court and that the present Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in taking a decision on the petitioners’ representations/applications filed under Section 61 of the Act. He further submitted that the quorum required for expulsion of members under Section 23 of the Act was also not present and hence, for this reason also, the resolution is not valid. He also submitted that Section 21 of the Act deals with the conditions for disqualification for membership of society and Rule 20 (2) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short, “TCS Rules) required the Registrar’s approval for removal of a member who is disqualified. Therefore, according to him, the said Rule would be applicable to the termination of membership under Section 23 of the Act as well. 6.6 In addition to the above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34351 of 2025 and 34627 of 2025 submitted that respondent No.4-society has displayed the voter list on 10.11.2025 calling for objections to the same, and that the list contained the names of the father, wife and mother of respondent No.5, though such membership is not permitted and it also contained the names of some of the members who have expired. He has also drawn the attention to the objections raised by him to the voters list vide representation dated 04.11.2025 as well as his representation dated 06.10.2025 on the illegal termination of the petitioners membership. 7. Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Prateek Reddy, learned counsel for Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. 7. Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Prateek Reddy, learned counsel for Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. He submitted that a Writ Petition is not maintainable against the society as the society is not an instrumentality of the State. He further submitted that there is an efficacious and alternative remedy available under Section 76 the Act against the order under Section 23 of the Act and therefore, the petitioners ought to have availed the same and this Writ Petition is not maintainable. He submitted that in all the cases, the concerned members have submitted their explanations and have also appeared before the General Body, except for the petitioner in W.P.No.34765 of 2025. He further submitted that the General Body of the society which is supreme, after considering the contentions of the petitioners herein, has decided to terminate their membership and accordingly, resolution was passed and the said resolution was also communicated to the expelled members and therefore, due procedure was followed and there is no cause for interference at this stage. 7.1 Learned Senior Counsel for respondent-society relied upon the provisions of Section 23 of the Act for expulsion of members and submitted that any order under Section 23 of the Act is appealable under Section 76 of the Act and was not amenable to Section 61 of the Act and therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that under sub-section (6) of Section 76 of the Act, The Tribunal has the power to pass interim orders pending disposal of the appeal, and in many cases, the Tribunal has passed interim orders to protect the interest of the appellants before it and therefore there being an efficacious alternative remedy, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. 7.2 Learned Senior Counsel for respondent-society further referred to the representation of the petitioners allegedly submitted to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act and submitted that petitioners did not raise any objection with regard to termination of membership in the said applications but have raised various other issues seeking supersession of the Managing Committee and therefore, they are not against termination of membership of the petitioners. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Katragadda Kishore v. the State of Telangana and others , 2022 (1) ALD 159 in support of his contentions that a Writ Petition is not maintainable against this society. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation has forwarded the copy of the written instructions received from the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies and submitted that the representation of the petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.29424 of 2025 dated 08.11.2025 was entrusted to District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District, for necessary action. It is further stated that the respondents No.2 has no statutory jurisdiction to involve regarding termination of membership of the petitioners under Sections 21 and 23 of the Act. He further submitted that the impugned orders are appealable under Section 76 of the Act before the Cooperative Tribunal. 9. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land was allotted to respondent No.4-society by the Government at a very nominal price and therefore, the Government’s contribution is significant and further that the involvement of the Government is also evident from the fact that a Five Men Committee, consisting of three Government officials and two persons from film industry was constituted for allotment of units to members of the film industry and registrations have to be effected strictly in accordance with the allotments made by the Five Men Committee only. Therefore, according to him, the society is under the supervisory control of the Government, and thus, a Writ Petition against the society is maintainable. 9.1 As regards, the orders under Section 23 of the Act, learned Senior Counsel submitted that none of the conditions specified under Section 21 of the Act for disqualification of the members are attracted in this case and even as per Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 20 of TCS Rules, the Registrar's approval is necessary for disqualifying a person and that the said Rule is applicable to expulsion of a member under Section 23 of the Act as well. It is submitted that in the present case, the Registrar has not yet given such approval and therefore, the petitioners representations have to be considered by the Registrar under Section 23 of the Act read with Rule 20 of the TCS Rules as well and that further, he submitted that the provisions of Section 23 of the Act can be invoked only when the concerned member has caused financial loss to the society, and as per the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Registrar, Shamshabad, the loss was caused not by the members of the society but was caused by the acts of the Managing Committee of the society. 9.2 Learned Senior Counsel also referred to Rules 20 of the TCS Rules to demonstrate that the termination orders have to be confirmed by the Registrar to become effective. It is submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Katragadda Kishore (cited supra) is not applicable to the present case as it is distinguishable on facts. 9.3 As regards the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for respondent-society that the order under Section 23 of the Act is an appealable before the Cooperative Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that unless the Registrar decides that the dispute under Section 61 of the Act, the petitioners cannot approach the Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act. He submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-society are distinguishable on facts and therefore, they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34351 and 34627 of 2025 adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.29424, 34764 and 34765 of 2025 and submitted that except for variations in the factual matrix, the issues and the legal points involved in all of these writ petitions are similar. 11. Having regard to rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the respondent-society intended to hold a General Body Meeting on 28.09.2025 and item No.6 of the agenda pertained to removal of certain members. This Court has observed that any resolution passed on the said item of the agenda would be subject to the result of W.P.No.29424 of 2025. This Court has observed that any resolution passed on the said item of the agenda would be subject to the result of W.P.No.29424 of 2025. Therefore, the resolution passed by the General Body terminating the membership of the petitioners herein has not attained finality. 12. The first and foremost issue to be decided in this Writ Petition is its maintainability. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-society has placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Katragadda Kishore (cited supra) . In the said case against the respondent No.4 herein, the Court has held as under: “26. Chapter-VIII of the Act, 1964 deals with settlement of disputes. Section 61 is very elaborate and encompasses all aspects of disputes concerning the affairs of a Society. It is very wide and covers the grievance ventilated by the petitioners in the writ petitions. The disputes as sought to be urged herein can be placed before the Registrar for his consideration and the decision. Further, as per sub-section (2) wide power is vested in the Registrar to resolve any controversy, touching upon constitution, management or business of the Society and his decision is final. On such reference, according to Section 62, it is competent for the Registrar to elect to decide the dispute himself or transfer for disposal to any person, who is vested with power by the Government or refer the dispute to Arbitrator. The Act, 1964 is comprehensive and takes care of all aspects concerning the Societies. 27. If petitioner in W.P.No.20367 of 2021 has any grievance on the Executive Committee taking a decision to terminate his membership, or the General Body accepts the proposal placed before it by the existing Executive Committee to terminate the membership of the petitioner, enough safeguards are provided to seek redress to the petitioner under Section 61 of the Act. When statutorily engrafted redressal mechanism is provided on wide spectrum of issues concerning a Society, the Court should not entertain the writ petition and decide upon issues concerning the affairs of the Society including a possible termination of membership even before decisions are made by the General Body of the Society, more so, when Section 31-A vests wide powers in the Executive Committee and far wider powers in the General Body under Section 30. 28. Any decision by this Court on the aspects urged herein would only undermine the statutory scheme. 28. Any decision by this Court on the aspects urged herein would only undermine the statutory scheme. The writ Court should not entertain the writ petitions and choke enforcement of the statutory scheme.” 13. However, this Court finds that in the said case, the challenge was to the convening of General Body Meeting and the agenda included for removal of members. However, in this case, the challenge is to the inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 in taking action under Section 61 of the Act. Therefore, this decision is distinguishable on facts. The preliminary objection is accordingly rejected. 14. As regards the contention of the petitioners that their representations under Section 61 to the Registrar have not been disposed of, this Court finds that the representation referred to in W.P.No.29424 of 2025 primarily relate to the alleged illegalities/irregularities committed by the Managing Committee. The representations refers only to the show cause notice as the General Body Meeting was not held till such date and therefore, there cannot be any specific relief against termination of membership. Further, disqualification would not come into effect unless and until it is approved by the Registrar under Rule 20 of the TCS Rules. For the sake of proper appreciation of the case and ready reference, the relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced hereunder:- “ 21. Further, disqualification would not come into effect unless and until it is approved by the Registrar under Rule 20 of the TCS Rules. For the sake of proper appreciation of the case and ready reference, the relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced hereunder:- “ 21. Disqualification for membership of society (1) A person shall be disqualified for being admitted as, and for being a member, if he - (a) is an applicant to be adjudicated an insolvent or is an of society insolvent; or (aa) is not eligible for membership under section 19 (b) has been sentenced for any offence involving moral turpitude, such sentence not having been reversed and a period of three years has not elapsed from the date of the expiration of the sentence; or (c) is a paid employee of the society or of its financing bank or of any society for which it is the financing bank; or (d) has been expelled from membership under this Act and a period of one year has not elapsed from the date of such expulsion; or (e) is carrying on business of such kind as the Registrar may, by general or special order, declare to be a business which is in conflict with the objects or interests of the society; or (f) as such member fails to transact such minimum business or utilise minimum services or facilities in a year as may be specified in the bye-laws; or in respect of Housing societies if the member sold out the plot alloted to him/her; or (g) fails to attend two consecutive annual general body meetings without leave of absence; or (h) fails to give information relevant to him to the society as specified in the bye-laws; (i) is/was a director or member of the Managing Committee of the society which fails to handover all the records of the society to the successor Managing Committee.” 15. It is evident that the petitioners do not satisfy any of these conditions. 16. Section 23 of the Act provides as under: “(1) Any member who has acted adversely to the interests of the society may be expelled upon a resolution of the general body passed its meeting by the votes of not less than where by majority of the total membership of the society is present and two-thirds of the members of the society present and voting. (2) No member shall be expelled under sub-section (1)unless,– (a) member caused loss of financial to the society. (b) member is involved in impersonation, forgery or any other Criminal Activity against the society. (c) Provided that the member shall be given an opportunity of making his/her representation to the Managing Committee. (3) A copy of resolution expelling the member shall be communicated to the member within 30 days under copy to the Registrar. From a reading of Clause (c) above, it is seen that principles of natural justice are embedded herein by providing that the member shall be given an opportunity of making his or her representation to the Managing Committee. 17. Rule 20 of the TCS Rules reads as under: “20. Removal of a member of a Society who is disqualified: (1) if any person, who is admitted as a member of a society becomes disqualified under Section 21 to continue as such, the Registrar may, on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society or its financing bank by an order in writing, declare that he shall cease to be a member of the society from the date of such disqualification. (2) Before passing an order under sub-rule (1) the Registrar shall give such person an opportunity to state his objection, if any, for the proposed action and If the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given opportunity to be heard. The Registrar’s decision shall be final and binding on the society and it shall not be questioned in any court. 18. Thus, in addition to the opportunity of hearing to be given by the society, the Registrar also has to give an opportunity of hearing to the members against whom action is sought to be taken. 19. Admittedly, the Registrar has not passed any order of disqualification under Section 21 of the Act or order of expulsion under Section 23 of the Act and has not approved the termination of the members. 19. Admittedly, the Registrar has not passed any order of disqualification under Section 21 of the Act or order of expulsion under Section 23 of the Act and has not approved the termination of the members. The orders of disqualification of members under Section 21 of the Act and also expulsion of members under Section 23 of the Act can come into effect only after a resolution is passed by the General Body of the Society after giving an opportunity of hearing to such of the members and after communication of the resolution to the concerned member and after its approval by the Registrar. Section 23 of the Act also prescribes that the expulsion shall be upon a resolution of the General Body passed in its meeting by the votes of not less than whereby majority of the total membership of the society is present and two thirds of the members of the society are present and voting. Sub-section (3) also prescribes that a copy of the resolution expelling the member shall be communicated to the members within 30 days under copy to the Registrar. Therefore, it is apparent that the actions of disqualification and expulsion being primitive in nature, the Registrar is bestowed with the obligation to verify whether the conditions for such action are satisfied and he has to give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned members before confirming the actions. Further, such an opportunity must be an informed opportunity i.e., the specific allegations and relevant material must be supplied to the person. In the present case, the said procedure has not been followed. The show cause notices cannot be said to have been validly issued and the termination orders are not sustainable. Rule 20 of the TCS Rules is applicable to both the circumstances. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of terminations of the petitioners have come into effect. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the order under Section 23 of the Act would be appealable under Section 76 of the Act only after the Registrar passes an order of approval of the resolutions. 20. The petitioners have submitted representations to the Registrar prior to any decision being taken by the Registrar. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the order under Section 23 of the Act would be appealable under Section 76 of the Act only after the Registrar passes an order of approval of the resolutions. 20. The petitioners have submitted representations to the Registrar prior to any decision being taken by the Registrar. Though the representations do not refer to the termination order, they refer to the show-cause notices, the reply submitted by the petitioners and the society’s letters of removal dated 25.10.2025 and 06.11.2025. Therefore, the representations have to be considered by the Registrar before taking a decision under Section 23 of the Act read with Rule 20 of the TCS Rules. Notwithstanding the representation of the petitioners, the Registrar also has to issue notices to the petitioners calling for this explanation before taking any decision. For the inaction on the part of the Registrar in acting on the representations of the petitioners, these Writ Petitions are maintainable. 21. The counsel for both the parties have placed reliance upon various decisions in support of their contentions. 22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of AP High Court (as it then was) in the case of M.A.R.V.S. Sai Babu vs Commissioner and Register of Cooperative Societies, Government of A.P. , 1999 (2) ALD 319 (DB) , in support of his contention that this Court can interfere with the election process if there are any irregularities in the electoral list-either wrongful admission of members or wrongful deletion of valid members as such issues do not fall under Rule 22-AAA of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 but are covered either by Section 32(7)(a) of the Act before commencement of the election process or sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 61 of the Act, after the election process starts. It is submitted that since the election process has not yet commenced, this Court can examine the matters about the members of the society, and also their ability to participate in the elections. 23. It is submitted that since the election process has not yet commenced, this Court can examine the matters about the members of the society, and also their ability to participate in the elections. 23. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others , , (2020) 9 SCC 356 in support of his contention that in an appropriate case, a Writ Petition is maintainable against the State or an instrumentality of the State even where the dispute arises out of a contractual obligation. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that merely because disputed questions of fact arise it cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a Writ Petition in all cases as a matter of rule and that a Writ Petition involving consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus but are duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or the public authority fails to exercise, or wrongly exercises, discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government, or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant considerations. Therefore, according to him, in order to prevent injustice to parties, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court may pass orders or give directions which the Government or the public authority ought to have passed had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. 24. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-society, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh (as it then was), in the case of Nischint Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Khader Nawaz Khan , 2020 4 ALT 426 , in support of his contention that the petitioners are not supposed to make bald allegations against any person, without relevant evidence. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. N.R.Vairamani, 2004 (7) Supreme 126 , for the proposition that while considering the order of precedents on the issue, factual and circumstantial similarity must be taken into consideration. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Surthi Venkatesh v. Election Committee , Sri. Somavamsha Shasatrarjana Kshatriya Mutually-Aided Cooperative Thrift Society Ltd., (2021) 3 ALD 105 , for the proposition that this Writ Petition is not maintainable against a society. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509 , for the proposition that the election process includes preparation of voter list till declaration of the result and therefore, election cannot be interfered with at any of the stages. 25. This Court finds that the main grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition relates to the action taken by respondent-society to terminate their membership on the ground that they are obstructing the activities of the society and have caused financial loss to the society. The petitioners have challenged the said action at the earliest point of time i.e., on issuance of the agenda and also submitted replies to the show-cause notices. All the petitioners except the petitioner in W.P.No.34765 of 2025 have also appeared before the General Body and made their submissions. 26. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, that the show cause notices do not mention the specific acts through which the petitioners have allegedly obstructed the functioning of the society, nor do they set out the particulars of the financial loss allegedly caused by them. He had submitted that making of general and bald allegations in the show cause notice does not entitle the society to take punitive action against the members. 27. It is settled law that before taking punitive action against any person, the person concerned must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations. Unless specific allegations along with the relevant circumstances which lead to such conclusions, are communicated, the petitioners or the persons accused cannot be expected to give an effective reply. 28. 27. It is settled law that before taking punitive action against any person, the person concerned must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations. Unless specific allegations along with the relevant circumstances which lead to such conclusions, are communicated, the petitioners or the persons accused cannot be expected to give an effective reply. 28. It is noticed that though the petitioners herein have requested for the details of the allegations made against them, the respondents have neither supplied such particulars nor furnished any material in support of their contentions. Further, the explanations submitted by the petitioners were also not dealt with by way of speaking orders, but were summarily rejected by the General Body and the orders of termination of the membership were communicated to the petitioners vide impugned proceedings. This is clearly against the spirit of the cooperative movement. The respondents appear to have taken action against the petitioners solely on the ground that the petitioners challenged the activities of the Managing Committee. The Co-operative Societies Act does not prohibit members from challenging the actions of the Managing Committee. The cooperative principles require that members act in good faith and that actions against the members must not be arbitrary. 29. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-society are thus distinguishable on facts, particularly because the petitioners herein are seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their representations under Section 61 of the Act. Further, the proceedings of termination of the membership of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.34351, 34627, 34764, and 34765 of 2025 have not yet attained finality. Therefore, the petitioners shall continue to be the members of the society and shall also be entitled to participate in the elections scheduled to be held in December 2025. Since, it is stated that the term of Managing Committee came to an end on 09.10.2025, respondent No.2 is directed to appoint an official PIC to conduct elections to the Managing Committee of the society at the earliest. 30. In the result; (i) W.P.No.29424 of 2025 is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider and take action on the complaint of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 30. In the result; (i) W.P.No.29424 of 2025 is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider and take action on the complaint of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since, the tenure of the committee has already expired, there can be no question of supersession, but a decision has to be taken on the report of the Assistant Registrar under Section 51 of the Act and till such time a decision is taken, the respondent No.2 ought not have taken any decision on the termination orders. (ii) W.P.Nos.34351, 34764 and 34765 of 2025 are disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representations of the petitioners against the resolution under Section 23 of the Act, and also issue notice under Rule 20 of the TCS Rules before taking a decision thereunder. (iii) W.P.No.34627 of 2025 is disposed of directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to rectify the voters list as directed above before conduct of elections to the Managing Committee. 31. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.