JUDGMENT : (Ravi Cheemalapati, J.) Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 07.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.22627 of 2017, the petitioner in the said writ petition preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings issued by respondent no.3 and consequential proceedings issued by respondent no.5 being illegal; was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority. 3. The facts that led to filing of the writ appeal, in brief, are that: (a) The petitioner is president of respondent no.7-Devuni Kadapa Police Department Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building society Limited. In pursuance of the representation submitted by a member of the said society regarding serious irregularities found in the functioning of the society; the Registrar of the Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, by proceedings dated 03.12.2015, directed the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Proddatur to conduct an enquiry and submit a report and accordingly, a detailed report dated 31.03.2016 was submitted. Thereupon, the Special Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies reviewed the said report and vide orders dated 01.06.2016 directed to take follow up action, besides directing the District Cooperative Officer, Kadapa to initiate action for recovery of Rs.6,53,358/- from the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 33 of Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short, ‘APMACS Act’) and criminal action under section 38(4) of the APMACS Act for misappropriation of funds of the society. Challenging the enquiry report dated 31.03.2016 as well as the orders dated 01.06.2016, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.43648 of 2016. Considering the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader based on the written instructions that the respondent will follow the procedure stipulated by law before decision is taken; the said writ petition was disposed of on 23.12.2016, making it clear that disposal of the writ petition shall not be understood as this Court expressing view on the objections now stated in the affidavit on merits canvassed by the petitioner. The District Cooperative Officer issued proceedings dated 28.10.2016 authorizing the Divisional Cooperative officer to file criminal case against the committee members including its president i.e. the petitioner and pursuantly, the Divisional Cooperative Officer addressed a letter to the concerned Station House Officer and a case in Crime No.100 of 2016 came to be registered under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC. Aggrieved thereby the writ petition covered under the orders impugned in this writ appeal has been filed. (b) The learned single Judge, upon considering the material available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, holding that in view of the orders passed in W.P.No.43648 of 2016, which have become final, the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot advance arguments questioning the competence of respondent no.2-the Special Commissioner and Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Society in passing orders dated 01.06.2016 directing respondent no.3-District Cooperative Officer, Kadapa to initiate action and also the validity of the report submitted by respondent no.5 in this writ petition and even otherwise in view of G.O.Ms.No.151, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, dated 20.06.2016, the respondent no.2 is competent to discharge the duties of Registrar under the provisions of the APMACS Act and further holding that since the petitioner himself expressed the willingness to face the criminal proceedings, no grounds exist for entertaining the writ petition; dismissed of the writ petition with costs as indicated in para-2 of this judgment. 4. 4. The said order is assailed in this Writ Appeal on the grounds that the learned single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the orders passed in W.P.No.43648 of 2016 has become final, since it is made clear in the said order that the petitioner can raise objections on the tenability of the report etc., as and when next step is taken; that the learned single Judge failed to take into consideration that in view of G.O.Ms.No.151, dated 20.06.2016, the respondent no.2 had no power to issue proceedings dated 3.12.2015 and 01.06.2016; that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the authority, who had no power to delegate, had also no power to ratify the actions of such delegated authority and that thus the power exercised by the Special Commissioner and Registrar in issuing impugned proceedings is beyond his competence; that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that as per Section 29 of the APMACS Act, the Registrar, upon his own motion, or on application of — a federation to which cooperative society is rd affiliated to or of a creditor of cooperative society or of not less than 1/3rd of the Directors or of not less than 1/10 members, hold an enquiry or cause an enquiry, but in the instant case based on a complaint made by one out of 1,735 members, enquiry was ordered and as such ordering enquiry is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside; that the learned single failed to ascertain as to whether the enquiry is conducted and completed within the period stipulated under Section 29(3) of the Act; that the learned single Judge failed to see that the enquiry was held in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded time to produce records; that the learned single Judge grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that prayer in this writ petition is in relation to the proceedings consequential to the enquiry report and therefore the learned counsel should confine his arguments regarding the consequential action alone and thus the competence of respondent no.2 in ordering enquiry and tenability of enquiry report cannot be questioned in the writ petition, in view of the clear observation while disposing of writ petition in W.P.No.43648 of 2016 that the petitioner can raise objections on the tenability of the report whenever next step is taken; that the learned single Judge failed to examine the contention raised by the writ petitioner regarding non-completion of enquiry within the period stipulation under sub Sections (3),(4) & (5) of Section 29 the APMACS Act, and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside and consequently the writ petition has to be allowed. 5. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned senior counsel for appellant and Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned Additional Advocate General. 6. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned senior counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and the grounds of appeal, would contend that in view of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.151, dated 20.06.2006 appointing the Additional Registrars working in the office of the Commissioner for cooperation and Registrar of cooperative Societies as ‘Registrars’; Sections 29 and 31 of the APMACS Act, disentitles respondent no.2 from ordering enquiry and initiating action, since he is no longer a Registrar as per the definition given under the Act; that the orders passed in Writ Petition No.43648 of 2016 in unequivocal terms say that the petitioner can raise objections on the tenability of the report as and when next step is taken, however the learned Judge erroneously held that the orders in Writ Petition No.43648 of 2016 have become final and thus the arguments regarding tenability of enquiry report cannot be raised in the writ petition and the arguments shall be confined to consequential proceedings taken pursuant to the said enquiry report; that the learned single Judge failed to observe that enquiry having not been completed within the time stipulated under Section 29(3) of the APMACS Act the enquiry shall lapse as per Section 29(4) of the Act; that the learned single Judge in utter misconception of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.43648 of 2016, which was disposed of without expressing anything on merits and leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all objections whenever consequential action is taken including the tenability of the report, dismissed the writ petition; that the enquiry report though mentions that the petitioner sought two (02) months time for production of records, it does not spell even a word as to whether the said request was either considered or rejected and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice, however the learned single Judge did not consider the said aspect. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the orders impugned and consequently allow the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the orders impugned and consequently allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the orders impugned in this writ appeal, contended that enquiry was ordered on 03.12.2015 and report was submitted on 31.03.2016, i.e. to say within the time stipulated under Section 29(3) of APMACS Act and thus the contentions raised contra being unsustainable are liable to be rejected. The learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that in view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.43648 of 2016, which have become final, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of respondent no.2 in initiating enquiry and the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition, since the learned counsel for the petitioner instead of addressing arguments on consequential action pursuant to the report, persistently argued regarding competence of respondent no.2, which was covered by earlier writ petition. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The material would indicate that pursuant to the representation made by one of the members of respondent no.7- Devuni Kadapa Police Department Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building society Limited; Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad by proceedings dated 03.12.2025 directed the Deputy Registrar to conduct enquiry with reference to certain points. Accordingly, enquiry was completed and a detailed report dated 31.03.2016 was submitted by letter dated 04.05.2016 and respondent no.2-Special commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies reviewed the same and passed orders dated 01.06.2016 for taking follow-up action for recovery of amount as per the provisions of Section 33 and to initiate criminal action under Section 38(4) of APMACS Act for misappropriation of funds. Questioning the Inquiry Report dated 31.03.2016 and the consequential proceedings dated 01.06.2016, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.43648 of 2016. 10.The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.12.2016. For expediency the relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted hereunder: “4. This Court is of the view that the objections now canvassed by the petitioner have to be treated as anticipated actions from respondents 3 and 4, after perusing the concluding paragraph in proceedings dated 01.06.2016, which reads thus: “The copies of Inquiry report (original +1) are enclosed. For expediency the relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted hereunder: “4. This Court is of the view that the objections now canvassed by the petitioner have to be treated as anticipated actions from respondents 3 and 4, after perusing the concluding paragraph in proceedings dated 01.06.2016, which reads thus: “The copies of Inquiry report (original +1) are enclosed. The DCO, Kadapa shall communicate the copy of the Inquiry report to the Managing Committee of the Devuni Kadapa Police Department Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Kadapa with instructions to arrange for placing the Inquiry Report together with the findings of the undersigned before the General Body. The District Cooperative Officer, Kadapa is instructed to initiate necessary action as indicated above and report compliance.” This Court has no reason to doubt that the respondents have set in motion the procedure under Section 29 and 31 of the Act and will proceed in accordance with law. As and when the next step is taken in the matter, before appropriate forum, the petitioner can raise objections on the tenability of the report etc. 5. The Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the report is the first stage of proceedings under Sections 29 and 31 of the Act and the respondents will follow the procedure stipulated by law before decision is taken in this behalf. 6. The statement is placed on record. The writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear the disposal of the writ petition shall not be understood as this Court expressing view on the objections now stated in the affidavit or merits canvassed by the petitioner.” 11. Admittedly, no appeal was preferred against the orders dated 23.12.2016 passed in W.P.No.43648 of 2016. 12. The contents of the writ affidavit would indicate that the District Cooperative Officer issued proceedings on 28.10.2016 authorizing the Divisional Cooperative Officer to file criminal case against the committee members including its president, viz., the petitioner and pursuantly the Divisional Cooperative Officer addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, RIMS Police Station, Kadapa on 31.10.2016 and a case in Crime No.100 of2016 under Sections 408, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code was registered. 13. 13. Questioning the proceedings dated 28.10.2016 issued by respondent no.3 and the consequential proceedings issued by respondent no.5 dated 31.10.2016 being illegal, arbitrary and to declare the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report as illegal, the writ petition covered by the orders impugned in this Writ Appeal was filed. 14. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner, under the guise of challenging the consequential proceedings, is not entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the second respondent in initiating enquiry and further as the petitioner never challenged the jurisdiction when he appeared before the enquiry officer, now it is not open to him to challenge the jurisdiction and even otherwise, as per Section 2(r) of APMACS Act and G.O.Ms.No.151, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, dated 20.06.2016, it cannot be said that respondent no.2 lacks jurisdiction. The order impugned in this writ appeal would further disclose that the learned single Judge observed that in view of the order in W.P.No.43648 of 2016 becoming final, the arguments based on the jurisdiction of the second respondent and the report of the third respondent are not available to the petitioner. 15. In the writ affidavit covered under the orders impugned in this writ appeal, the petitioner took pleas questioning the competence of respondent no.2 in ordering enquiry and also the tenability of the enquiry report being violative of principles of natural justice and further since the enquiry has not been completed within the time stipulated under section 29(4) the same shall lapse. 16. However, the learned single Judge, upon misconception that in view of the orders passed in W.P.No.43648 of 2016 the tenability of the report cannot be questioned including the competence of respondent no.2, dismissed the writ petition, besides imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- for wasting the precious time of the Court in advancing arguments which are not at all available in view of orders passed in W.P.No.43648 of 2016. 17. The Writ Petition vide W.P.No.43648 of 2016 was disposed of taking the view that since the objections canvassed by the petitioner have to be treated as anticipated actions from respondents 3 and 4; and as and when the next step is taken in the matter, before appropriate forum, the petitioner can raise objections on the tenability of the report etc. 18. 18. From a reading of the orders impugned in this writ petition, it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been given opportunity to advance arguments on the aspects referred to above and it seems that the Court persuaded the learned counsel to confine arguments only in relation to the consequential proceedings without touching the aspect of jurisdiction as well as tenability of the report. 19. To ascertain tenability of the report referred to in the orders passed in W.P.No.43648 of 2016, the Court should necessarily go into the competence of respondent no.2 in initiating enquiry and as to whether a fair and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during the course of enquiry. Hence, the orders impugned in this appeal were passed without permitting the learned counsel for the petitioner to putforth relevant arguments attacking the genuineness and validity of the report, which was made basis for taking consequential proceedings that were assailed in the writ petition. 20. Therefore, the orders impugned in this writ appeal having been passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same are liable to be set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to advance arguments on the tenability of the report including the competence of respondent no.2 in ordering enquiry. 21. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the orders dated 07.08.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.22627 of 2017 and the matter is remitted back for consideration of the matter afresh, after affording opportunity to learned counsel for advancing arguments on all the aspects including tenability of the report. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.