ORDER: T.Madhavi Devi, J. In Writ Petition No.26692 of 2024, the petitioner society is challenging the proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 09.09.2024 for conduct of inspection of the books of accounts of the petitioner society under Section 52 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.27330, 27742, 27755 and 28153 of 2024 are all challenging the proceedings in Rc.Nos.2247/2024-C, 2252/2024-C, 2251/2024-C and 2247/2024-C, dated 25.09.2024 respectively issued by respondent No.3 purportedly exercising the powers under Section 21AA (1)(b) of the Act as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. W.P.No.26692 of 2024 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner in W.P.No.26692 of 2024 is the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society set up in Pegadapalli Village of Jagtial District. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 09.09.2024 has ordered an inspection under Section 52(1) of the Act for inspection of the books of accounts of the petitioner society from the years 2014-2018 and 2018-2023 and the same is challenged in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said action of the respondent No.2 is not suo motu as mentioned in the impugned proceedings, but it is on the directions of the Government, which in turn has issued the directions at the behest of the ruling party MLA. It is submitted that under Section 52 of the Act, inspection can be ordered both suo motu or at the request of one of the creditor of the society and not even at the request of any member of the society, whereas in this case, the request was by the MLA of the ruling party who is neither a member or creditor of the society. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the respondent No.2 is biased and is at the behest of the third party and is therefore not sustainable. 5. This Court therefore, being satisfied about the prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, had granted interim suspension of the impugned notice and the same has been extended from time to time. 6. 5. This Court therefore, being satisfied about the prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, had granted interim suspension of the impugned notice and the same has been extended from time to time. 6. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 5 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 also has filed a separate counter affidavit justifying the issuance of the order under Section 52(1) of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Government Memo No.5958/Coop.II/1/2024, dated 05.09.2024 of the APC and Secretary to Government, Telangana, Hyderabad, which in turn has referred to the request to conduct Vigilance/enquiry on (6) PACS and (2) DCMS of Jagitial District which included the petitioner society. In the said Government Memo, there was a reference to the letter of the MLA, Dharmapuri, dated 02.09.2024. It is submitted that it is clear therefrom, that the inquiry ordered in the impugned order is not suo motu, but it is only on the direction of the MLA and therefore, it is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 52 of the Act to demonstrate that the inspection can be ordered by the registrar only of his own motion or on the application of the creditor of the society and not otherwise. He placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of the contentions: (1) Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth and Another Vs. Chancellor Kannur University and Others , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592] (2) D.Ramesh Sinha Vs. Cadre Authority for Key Personnel of Co-operative Central Banks/Apex Bank , [2001 SCC OnLine AP 1206] (3) Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others , [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] (4) M.Laxminarsimha Reddy Vs. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary Agriculture and Cooperation APC Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana and Others , [W.A.No.622 of 2023, dt. 01.09.2023] (5) Managing Committee of the Bureau of Economics and Statistics Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies , A.P.Gruhakalpa Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad , [W.A.No.1262 of 2004, dt.01.09.2004] (6) S.Ramu Vs. The A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam , rep. by its Registrar and Others, W.P.No.17226 of 2009, dt. 18.02.2014 He therefore prayed to set aside the impugned notice. 8. Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies , A.P.Gruhakalpa Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad , [W.A.No.1262 of 2004, dt.01.09.2004] (6) S.Ramu Vs. The A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam , rep. by its Registrar and Others, W.P.No.17226 of 2009, dt. 18.02.2014 He therefore prayed to set aside the impugned notice. 8. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the office of the Advocate General, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that under Section 52 of the Act, the registrar has the power to suo motu order inspection of books and he submitted that for taking the suo motu action, the source or information can be from any party and therefore, after the letter has been addressed by the concerned MLA, the Government has verified the same and has come to the conclusion that necessary action should be taken on the report and thereafter the respondent No.2, after being satisfied that the inspection is required under Section 52 of the Act, has ordered so. 9. In support of his contentions that suo motu power under Section 52 of the Act can be exercised and the source or information for taking such action can be from any source. 10. Learned Government Pleader has submitted the copy of the MLA letter vide Letter No.823/TGSLA/GW/DMP/ Agl./2024, dated 02.09.2024 and also copy of the Government Memo i.e., Memo No.5958/Coop.II/1/2024, dated 05.09.204. He thus relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Araja Narasimha Rao Vs. District Co-operative Officer/Joint Register and Others , [MANU/AP/0500/2007] in support of this contention. 11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the relevant material on record, this Court finds that the respondent No.2 claims to have exercised suo motu powers for ordering the inspection of the books of accounts of the petitioner society under Section 52 of the Act. As submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, before exercising the power under Section 52 of the Act, the respondent No.2 has to be satisfied about the requirement to order the inspection and for before doing so, as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case cited supra, by the learned Government Pleader the source of information can be any person. However, for exercising the powers under Section 52 of the Act, the officer has to be satisfied about the requirement for inspection. However, for exercising the powers under Section 52 of the Act, the officer has to be satisfied about the requirement for inspection. The impugned order refers to “financial irregularities committed by the respective PACS during the period 2014-18 and 2018-23” for coming to the conclusion about the need for inspection of the books of account. However, no instances of such financial irregularities are mentioned therein, but in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the PACS have constructed a huge shopping complexes in a small village without conducting any cost benefit analysis and therefore, there is misuse of funds of the society and therefore, the interim order has to be vacated and the respondents should be permitted to carry out the necessary inspections. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that there is a statutory audit every year by the officers of the department and no qualification whatsoever has been pointed out by the authorities at any point of time in all these years. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the audit reports of all the years filed along with the writ petitions to demonstrate that no irregularity has been committed and is noticed or pointed out by the audit party. According to him, the action of the respondent No.2 in ordering inspection is therefore not justified. 13. This Court finds that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not controverted by the respondent and the financial irregularities pointed out by the respondent No.2 is only in the counter affidavit filed by him and not in the impugned orders. 14. As held by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others (cited supra), when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Therefore, this Court can only go into the reasons given by the authorities in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court can only go into the reasons given by the authorities in the impugned order. The impugned order refers to the Government Memo for conduct of a detailed enquiry based on the records and random field verification and to enquire into the integrity of the financial transactions done in the six PACS and two DCMS braches of Jagitial District during the period from 2014-18 and 2018-2023. The specific instances of the financial irregularities are not pointed out in the said memo. The impugned proceedings also do not mention that the respondent No.2 has verified the information furnished by the Government to feel satisfied that there is a need for inspection of books of the accounts of the concerned PACS. He seems to have acted on the directions of the Government, which in turn had made the reference to the letter of the MLA. The fact that the accounts of the PACS are audited regularly, itself demonstrates that the registrar cannot interfere with the same without any reasonable cause. That reasonable cause has to be mentioned in the impugned order itself. As the required information is lacking in the impugned order dated 09.09.2024, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be sustained. This Court is supported by the following decisions for coming to this conclusion: (1) In the case of Managing Committee of the Bureau of Economics and Statistics Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited (cited supra), it has held that “Learned counsel for the appellant, before the learned Single Judge, with reference to Section 52 of the Act, urged that the said provision is not applicable, in case, Respondent No.2 had thought it appropriate to consider the representation dated:17.7.2004 submitted by the members and residents of the colony. Section 52 of the Act could have been invoked by the second respondent on his own motion or on the application of a creditor of the society, and, Respondent No.2 would have thereafter either inspected or directed inspection of the books of the Society. Representation of the members of the society or allegation made therein will not empower the Registrar to order inspection. He also represented that, at the most, Section 51 of the Act would have been invoked. But, that was not invoked. Representation of the members of the society or allegation made therein will not empower the Registrar to order inspection. He also represented that, at the most, Section 51 of the Act would have been invoked. But, that was not invoked. The learned Single Judge turned down the request without even taking up the said question raised by the petitioner.” (2) In the case of S.Ramu (cited supra), it has held that “the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1262/2004 held as under: Learned counsel for the appellant, before the learned Single Judge, with reference to Section 52 of the Act, urged that the said provision is not applicable, in case, Respondent No.2 had thought it appropriate to consider the representation dated:17.7.2004 submitted by the members and residents of the colony. Section 52 of the Act could have been invoked by the second respondent on his own motion or on the application of a creditor of the society, and, Respondent No.2 would have thereafter either inspected or directed inspection of the books of the Society. Representation of the members of the society or allegation made therein will not empower the Registrar to order inspection. He also represented that, at the most, Section 51 of the Act would have been invoked. But, that was not invoked. The learned Single Judge turned down the request without even taking up the said question raised by the petitioner. When Appeal was taken up for consideration, we have asked learned counsel for the respondents to take appropriate instructions in the matter. Learned counsel for respondents, rightly and frankly, concedes that in the given facts and circumstances, orders could not have been passed by Respondent No.2 under Section 52 of the Act directing inspection of the books of the Society. We also find that on the given facts, order of the respondent No.2 is bad in law, and, contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Consequently, we allow the appeal, and, set aside the impugned order with liberty reserved to the respondents to deal with the representation of members of the Society in accordance with law. No costs”. Consequently, we allow the appeal, and, set aside the impugned order with liberty reserved to the respondents to deal with the representation of members of the Society in accordance with law. No costs”. (3) In the case of D.Ramesh Sinha (cited supra), it was held that “Having regard to the aforementioned notings in the records, we have no doubt whatsoever that the impugned orders of suspension have been passed pursuant to and in furtherance of the directions issued by the State Government. Power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee or place him under suspension emanates from a statute. While exercising such statutory power, the competent authority, must therefore, apply its mind independently as to whether the conditions precedent for exercising such power exist. It is now trite that if a statutory authority acts at the behest of some other authority, however high he may be, who has no statutory role to play in the matter, then such action/or any order passed by him, would be a nonest in the eye of law. It is also well settled that while passing an order, if the statutory authority ignores the relevant factors or takes into considerations, factors not germane for the passing of the order, then such action or the order flowing from such action, would be vitiated in law. Equally well settled is the principle that the statutory authority while exercising statutory powers, must pose correct questions so as to apply correct legal principles and arrive at correct conclusions basing on the actual and exact state of affairs, and if he fails to do so, the same would amount to misdirection in law. Although decisions on this score are galore, suffice it to refer to the decision of the apex Court in COMMR. OF POLICE. V. GORDHANDAS, and the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in SECRETARY OF STATE v. TAMESIDE, (1976) 3 All ER 665” 15. In view of the same, the impugned order in this writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. W.P.NOs. 27330, 27742, 27755 & 28153 OF 2024 16. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are the President and Members of the Managing Committees respectively and the impugned order is passed under Section 21 AA(1)(b) of Act pursuant to the inspection report submitted by the Assistant Registrar under Section 52 of Act consequent to the proceedings dated 09.09.2024. W.P.NOs. 27330, 27742, 27755 & 28153 OF 2024 16. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are the President and Members of the Managing Committees respectively and the impugned order is passed under Section 21 AA(1)(b) of Act pursuant to the inspection report submitted by the Assistant Registrar under Section 52 of Act consequent to the proceedings dated 09.09.2024. Since the proceedings dated 09.09.2024 have been set aside by order even dated in the above paragraphs, the impugned orders in these writ petition are also liable to be set aside. 17. In view of the same, the impugned orders in these writ petitions are set aside and the writ petitions are accordingly allowed.