42-B (9) of the Byelaws. It is the case of the petitioner that being a Member, he addressed the said complaint by a representation dated 1002-2006 to the first respondent herein followed by another representation dated 28-02-2006. Incidentally, in the said representation he referred to other irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Society. Inasmuch as the said Byelaw does not permit allotment of plots to those who own houses/plots, according to the petitioner, the allotment made to the respondents 5 and 6 ought to be cancelled. The grievance is that despite the complaint made by representations dated 10-02-2006 and 2802-2006, no effective action was taken for cancellation of the plots. It is further stated that although the first respondent addressed a letter Rc.No.353/2006 H, dated 10-04-2006 to the Secretary of the Society, the said letter did not yield any result. It is further stated that the first respondent at one stage reacted to the complaint and caused an enquiry through the Assistant Registrar/SDLCO, Office of the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Nampally Mandal, Golconda Division. The said Officer submitted a report dated 31-12-2006 inter alia pointing out that respondents 5 and 6 purchased flat/plot. The first respondent although received the said report has not taken any action thereafter. It is therefore the case of the writ petitioner that the first respondent should be compelled to take action pursuant to the aforesaid representations of the petitioner and the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar/SDLCO, Nampally Mandal, Golconda Division.
