ORDER : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. Heard Sri A. Rama Krishna, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri A. Krishna Kishore, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Co-operation. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief: “…pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing notice U/s.34 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 vide in Rc.No.41/2000/B for initiation of supersession of the Managing committee of the Petitioner-Society for willful disobedience of the directions of the 2 nd Respondent without conducting enquiry U/s.51 before taking steps to initiate notice U/s.34 (1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 is highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power and violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and to set-aside the same and consequently direct the 4 th Respondents to conduct enquiry by giving opportunity to the Petitioner-Society before taking action on the allegations made in the impugned notice vide in Rc.No.41/2000/B issued by 4 th Respondent..” 3. The above extract of the prayer would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has challenged the Show-cause Notice issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Divisional Co-operative Officer Visakhapatnam (Respondent No.4), dated 10.03.2025 (Ex.P.1) under Section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (‘the Act’). 4. The following facts are briefly stated for the purpose of disposal of the present Writ Petition: i. The Writ Petitioner is a Society represented by its President. The Impugned Show-cause Notice would indicate that the Official Respondent No.4 seeks to initiate Proceedings for supersession of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society for willful disobedience of the statutory directions issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies. ii. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Respondent No.4), vide the Impugned Show-cause Notice, had directed the Petitioner Society to submit an explanation within fourteen days from the date of receipt of the said Notice. 5. This Court has perused the Show-cause Notice issued under Section 34 (1) of the Act. The facts narrated in the Show-cause Notice, briefly stated, are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has circulated specific directions to return the deposits collected from non-members in a phased manner vide Rc.No. Rc.No.41/2000/B, dated 14.06.2022. 5. This Court has perused the Show-cause Notice issued under Section 34 (1) of the Act. The facts narrated in the Show-cause Notice, briefly stated, are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has circulated specific directions to return the deposits collected from non-members in a phased manner vide Rc.No. Rc.No.41/2000/B, dated 14.06.2022. Thereafter, a Statutory Inspection was conducted by the Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Visakhapatnam under Section 52 of the Act on 06.09.2022. The Inspection Report dated 27.01.2023 had noted that an amount of Rs.57.18 crores relating to the deposits made by the non-members are pending discharge by the Society as on 31.03.2022. A direction was given to the Managing Committee of the Writ Petitioner Society to strictly adhere to the statutory directions that were issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 6. It is also stated that several Petitions have been received by the Official Respondents, particularly the District Collector, Viskhapatnam, during the Spandana Programme and Public Grievance Redressal Scheme (PGRS) about the irregular collection of deposits from retired employees, who are non-members of the Petitioner Society by the Board of Management in violation of the statutory directions. The Applicants in the Spandana Programme and PGRS had requested the Official Respondents to take appropriate action against the Managing Committee as per the Provisions of the Act. 7. In pursuance of the complaints received, the Official Respondents have conducted a detailed Enquiry, which revealed that an amount of Rs.4.48 crores was with the Petitioner Society relating to the deposits collected from non-members and that such amounts were being further renewed in violation of the statutory directions. 8. The President of the Petitioner Society has also reported on 19.02.2025 that an amount of Rs.12.42 crores is lying in deposits with the Society that relates to the retired employees, who are non-members and the same is not refunded for want of funds. This apart, several other misuses of funds were also identified by the Official Respondents on the occasion of the celebrations by the Society for completing 85 years in the month of December 2024. 9. In the above premise, the Official Respondents have formed a prima facie opinion that the Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society has willfully violated the statutory norms and the statutory directions. 10. 9. In the above premise, the Official Respondents have formed a prima facie opinion that the Managing Committee of the Petitioner Society has willfully violated the statutory norms and the statutory directions. 10. Therefore, the Impugned Show-cause Notice was issued to show cause as to why the Managing Committee of the Writ Petitioner Society should not be superseded for deliberate and willful disobedience of the statutory directions issued by the Official Respondents within fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of the Notice. 11. It is clear from the above facts that the Writ Petitioner Society has challenged a Show-cause Notice. The law is well settled as to when a Writ Court can interfere when there is a challenge to a Show-cause Notice. Abundant caution has been sounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions, with a Caveat to the Writ Courts not to interfere in a Show-cause Notice except under certain specified circumstances. Such circumstances are that where the Official Respondents have violated the principles of natural justice or where such Notice has been issued in violation of the statutory provision or without jurisdiction. 12. Since the law is well settled, this Court is of the opinion that there is no necessity to reinvent the wheel. Suffice it to note the following judgments of the Apex Court and the relevant paragraphs, which are as under: i. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahm Datt Sharma and another ; (1987) 2 SCC 179 – Para 9. ii. The Special Director and another vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another ; (2004) 3 SCC 440 – Para 5. iii. Union of India vs Vicco Laboratories ; (2007) 13 SCC 270 –Para 31. iv. Union of India vs Coastal Container Transporters Association and others ; (2019) 20 SCC 446 – Para 30 to 33. 13. Having regard to the well-settled legal position and having taken note of the contents of the Show-cause Notice dated 10.03.2025 (Ex.P.1) issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Respondent No.4), this Court is of the opinion that it is well within the purview of Respondent No.4 to have issued this Show-cause Notice. This Court is also of the view that the Impugned Show-cause Notice is neither in violation of any principles of natural justice nor has it been issued in violation of any statutory provision. 14. This Court is also of the view that the Impugned Show-cause Notice is neither in violation of any principles of natural justice nor has it been issued in violation of any statutory provision. 14. In this view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is bereft of any merit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. The Writ Petitioner is granted an additional one week time to enable the Writ Petitioner Society to submit an explanation in response to the Impugned Order. The period of one week shall be reckoned from the date on which this Order is uploaded on the Website of this Court. 16. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.