ORDER: NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in ordering enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964” ) into the affairs of Respondent No.5-Society and appointing Respondent No.4 as an Enquiry Officer vide Proceedings in Rc.No.444/2022/DCO-E, dated 13.08.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows; The Petitioners have been working in A.P. Paper Mills, Rajamahendravaram and they are also members of Respondent No.5-Society. Respondent No.5-Society was established in the year 1968 and it is an un-aided society with about 700 members. It is stated that the aim and object of the society is to advance loans to the members, which will be reimbursed by the management of the A.P. Paper Mills after deducting the monthly instalments from the salaries of the members. 3. It is stated that the elections were conducted to Respondent No.5-Society in the year 2016 and one P. Rama Krishna, K.L.L. Raju and Petitioner No.3 were elected as President, Secretary and Vice-President respectively and they served as such for 2 1/2 years and thereafter Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were elected as President and Secretary respectively and they served for another period of 2 1/2 years. 4. It is stated that on 19.05.2021, the tenure of the elected managing committee of Respondent No.5-Society had completed and the Person-in-charge Committee was appointed, which was continued till 19.05.2024 and Respondent No.5-Society had collected deposits from the members of the society and had advanced loans to the needy members. The amounts so deposited by the members of the Society will be paid with interest after getting maturity of 3 years. 5. It is stated that A.P. Paper Mills had stopped recovering the EMIs from the employees, who had taken loans from the Society from the month of October, 2023. Respondent No.6, who was working as the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No.5-Society failed to produce the records on being asked by the Person-in- charge Committee of Respondent No.5-Society and suspecting foul play, the Petitioners gave complaint to the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District on 05.08.2024 to take action against Respondent No.6 to see that the Society books are received from Respondent No.6. 6. 6. A similar representation was given to Respondent No.3 on 10.07.2024 to ensure that the complaint was filed before the concerned Police Station against Respondent No.6. It is stated that Respondent No.3 also addressed a letter on 09.07.2024 to the Person-in-charge Committee to file a police complaint against the concerned, who failed to hand over the records of the Society. 7. While so, Respondent No.2 initiated enquiry under Section 51 of the Act on the ground that one P. Suresh Kumar, retired employee of the A.P. Paper Mills and member of the Society filed a Petition before the District Collector, East Godavari making certain complaints. As the initiation of enquiry by Respondent No.2 is contrary to Section 51 of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964, the same was questioned in this Writ Petition. 8. A detailed Counter-Affidavit was filed by Respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that Society is running on its own funds and had opted for Chartered Accountant Audit for the last 10 to 15 years approximately. It is stated that the elections were conducted on 20.11.2016 and on completion of their term, the then Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Rajamahendravaram had appointed the same persons/Directors as Non-Official Person-in- charge Committee under Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964, for a period of six (6) months, which was extended from time to time. 9. It is stated that the Society had stopped 80% of its business activity due to loss of accounts books, discontinuation of recovery of EMIs from the salaries by the management of A.P. Paper Mills, Rajahmundry and complaints were received by the District Collector showing the Society in bad light. It is further stated that 29 depositors of the Society had submitted a grievance petition to the District Collector on 29.01.2024 as the Society had failed to remit monthly interest on their fixed deposits or refund the fixed deposits when they asked since November, 2023. It is further stated that 12 more members had given a similar complaint to the District Collector on 19.02.2024. 10. It is stated that one Shaik Masthan was appointed as official Person-in-charge vide G.O.Rt.No.371, A&C Dept., dated 17.05.2024 and was not permitted even to assume charge and erstwhile committee refused to hand over the charge and books of accounts to him. 10. It is stated that one Shaik Masthan was appointed as official Person-in-charge vide G.O.Rt.No.371, A&C Dept., dated 17.05.2024 and was not permitted even to assume charge and erstwhile committee refused to hand over the charge and books of accounts to him. It is stated that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by two (02) auditors and as per their report, financial irregularities were noted. In that context, the enquiry was ordered under Section 51 of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964. 11. An implead application was filed by Respondent Nos.7 to 12 along with their Counter-Affidavit stating that several irregularities and mismanagement of funds of the Society came to be noticed when the outgoing managing committee did not hand over the charge and books of accounts to the official Person-in-charge and it was in that context the enquiry was ordered. It is stated that the Respondents are entitled to their deposits, which are deposited with the Society and in view of the mismanagement of the funds of the Society they were unable to receive the amounts. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that the enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964 can be undertaken only in certain conditions and the same are not present in the instant case. It is submitted that the enquiry Section 51 of the Act can be conducted only in four contingencies as explained in the Section itself and submits that none of the provisions are applicable to the facts of the present case. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Daman Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 670 and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 82. 13. The learned Government Pleader for Cooperation Department appearing for the Respondents would submit that the enquiry was initiated after inspections under Section 51 of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964 and further contended that the Petitioners did not have any locus to question the same at this point of time as the enquiry is against the affairs of Respondent No.5-Society and not against the Petitioners. Even otherwise, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the enquiry is within the scope of Section 51 of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964, as the Divisional Cooperative Officer after being satisfied that there are acts of misappropriation warranting an enquiry had issued the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel for the impleaded Respondents argued in support of the learned Government Pleader. 14. The issue that falls for consideration is; Whether the initiation of enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.C.S. Act, 1964 is within the scope of the same? 15. Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 reads as under; “The Registrar, may of his own motion and shall, on the application of a society to which the society concerned is affiliated, or of not less than one third of the members of the Committee, or of not less than one fifth of the total number of members of the society, hold an inquiry or direct some person authorised by him by an order in this behalf to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society. Such inquiry shall be completed within a period of four months and the report of inquiry along with the findings of the Registrar thereon shall be communicated to the managing committee of the society. It shall be the responsibility of the managing committee to place the inquiry report before the General Body or Special General Body convened for the purpose for its information, within a period of one month from the communication of the inquiry report by the Registrar. It shall be the responsibility of the managing committee to place the inquiry report before the General Body or Special General Body convened for the purpose for its information, within a period of one month from the communication of the inquiry report by the Registrar. The Registrar shall be competent to initiate action under the provisions of this Act, if the committee fails to take action as aforesaid: Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and the Rules made thereunder, the bye laws of a society and the action of the society in placing the inquiry report along with the findings of the Registrar, the Registrar shall not be precluded from taking follow up action as may be required on the basis of inquiry report : Provided further that such action shall not be nullified even if the General Body of the Society passes a resolution negativing the findings of the inquiry: Provided also that the Registrar may for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the period of four months for completion of inquiry for a further period not exceeding two months. Explanation:— For the purposes of this section, “Managing Committee” includes a Committee constituted under Section 31(l)(a), and a person-in-charge appointed under Section 32(7)(a) and also a special officer appointed under Section 34 of the Act.] 16. The above provision contemplates enquiry in the conditions as mentioned below; “(a) The Registrar, may of his own motion and shall (b) on the application of a society to which the society concerned is affiliated, or (c) of not less than one third of the members of the Committee, or (d) of not less than one fifth of the total number of members of the society, hold an inquiry or 17. In the present case, the enquiry was ordered by the Registrar on his own motion and the only check for exercise of the suo motu power is to see if the power was exercised for arbitrary reasons. At this stage, there is no requirement to examine the objections to the enquiry on the merits. 18. In the present case, complaints were made to the District Collector in PGRS (Spandana) on 29.01.2024 by 29 depositors and 12 more depositors also made similar grievance on 19.02.2024. At this stage, there is no requirement to examine the objections to the enquiry on the merits. 18. In the present case, complaints were made to the District Collector in PGRS (Spandana) on 29.01.2024 by 29 depositors and 12 more depositors also made similar grievance on 19.02.2024. Apart from the above, one individual i.e., Respondent No.7 Panda Suresh Kumar informed the District Collector regarding discontinuation of recovery of loans by the management of the A.P. Paper Mills. 19. Before the impugned proceedings, one S.K. Mastan, Senior Inspector was appointed as the official Person-in-charge vide G.O.Rt.No.371 on 17.5.2024 and he reported that he was not permitted to assume charge as the Society was always locked vide letter dated 06.07.2024. Thereafter, the Divisional Cooperative officer, Rajahmahendravaram on 12.07.2024 taking note of the un-cooperative attitude of the Society and the complaints from member-depositors to the District Collector, passed orders under Section 117 of the Act, authorising one M. Krishna Mohan, Asst. Registrar to enter, search and break open the locks of the Society with the help of police in the light of complaints against the Society for not paying the FDs to the member depositors. 20. Thereafter, vide Proceedings dated 26.7.2024, two departmental auditors were appointed to submit a report on the financial status of the Society. Accordingly, a report was submitted on 29.7.2024, based on the available records. As per the preliminary enquiry report, the committee, inclusive of petitioners herein sanctioned loans beyond the borrowing power and Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were given Rs.27,83,701/- and Rs.22,50,662/- respectively. It was also observed that even if the entire loans are recovered, there is a deficit of Rs.60,18,605/- and that there is financial distress in the Society. It was also opined that there was lack of transparency and improper maintenance of records, and a thorough enquiry was recommended. 21. Taking note of the report, an enquiry was ordered after being satisfied that there is prima facie case, vide impugned proceedings. The very same departmental auditors were directed to submit report within two (02) months. 22. It is clear from the above that the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was ordered after being thoroughly satisfied of a prima facie case which was supported by a preliminary report coupled with un-cooperative attitude of the Society in not even permitting the official person-in-charge to assume office. 22. It is clear from the above that the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was ordered after being thoroughly satisfied of a prima facie case which was supported by a preliminary report coupled with un-cooperative attitude of the Society in not even permitting the official person-in-charge to assume office. Therefore, the exercise of suo motu power under Section 51 of the Act can neither be said to be arbitrary or whimsical. 23. Apart from the above, the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act is akin to an internal enquiry with regard to the affairs of the Society and at this stage, the members of the Society cannot be said to be persons aggrieved, who suffered a legal wrong followed with a legal injury, which is the sine qua non for maintaining a Writ Petition. Under the scheme of the Act, the Section 51 enquiry report would be the basis to initiate action under Section 60 of the Act against persons, who have caused loss to the Society. At that stage, the objections could be raised and the determination of the objections under Section 60 of the Act would be subject to appeal to the Tribunal under Section 76 of the Act. The anticipated prophetic action under Section 60 of the Act cannot be the basis to stall enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 25. No order as to costs. 26. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.