6. The Commission, by taking note of the filing of the case in O.P.No.2103 of 2009, had noticed that the claim of the second respondent was that most of the amounts have been invested by her, her late husband and her two sons and in spite of the same, there are no audited accounts and there is mismanagement, for which the petitioners are responsible as per the obligation under Section 12 of the Societies Act to maintain the accounts and records. Hence, it was felt necessary to issue direction to the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderebad to depute an auditor to audit the accounts of the society for the period since its inception i.e., 2006 to 31-07-2010 and file the audited accounts before the Commission by 01-10-2010. Further there is a direction to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sangareddy branch, to release the funds to the second respondent by permitting regular operations of the accounts of the college by the authorized signatory and file compliance report before the Commission by the said date. It is this order which, according to the petitioners, is squarely covered by the proceedings which are already initiated by them in O.P.No.2103 of 2009 and therefore, apart from the matter being subsidized, the question of violation of human rights does not arise. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught.
