HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.670 of 2001 Dt:- 27.01.2012 Between:- Sk.Chand Basha … Petitioner and The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and another … Respondents This Court made the following:- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.670 of 2001 ORDER: - The writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society imposing surcharge on the petitioner. The said impugned proceedings, dated 06.11.2000, came to be passed in pursuance of the responsibility fixed on the petitioner by the auditor on the ground that the petitioner was godown incharge and there was prima facie material to conclude that he was responsible for the misappropriation of banks funds to the extent of Rs.30,644/-. A notice under Section 60 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 was issued to the petitioner as to why the said deficit amount should not be recovered from him. Petitioner submitted his representation, dated 22.08.2000, and the factual explanation submitted by him was not accepted. Thereafter a personal hearing was fixed on 30.08.2000 and the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Registrar and sought further time. On further hearing on 06.09.2000, petitioner raised objections through his representation, dated 18.09.2000 and on subsequent hearings dated 19.09.2000 though the petitioner appeared through his counsel, no further documentary evidence was produced. In the ultimate examination the Deputy Registrar has verified the records and on being satisfied that the petitioner was the godown in charge at the relevant point of time, has found that the petitioner is responsible for the deficiency in the stocks as the godown keys were always with him and petitioner was also being paid special pay of Rs.300/- per month as godown incharge. The impugned order of surcharge was accordingly made against the petitioner based on the documentary evidence available on record and after duly considering the petitioner’s reply and representations. The said order is questioned in this writ petition. While the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to sustain the writ petition by contending that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, I am unable to appreciate the said contention as the order itself, more than once, shows that the petitioner was given adequate notice and was given adequate opportunity to submit representation and he appeared through his counsel also. Secondly all the questions, which are raised in support of the writ petition, are pure factual questions, which have been held against the petitioner not only in the audit enquiry but also in the surcharge proceedings. They are, therefore, not amenable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also evident that though the impugned order is dated 06.11.2000, there was no stay pending the writ petition and by now the amount must have been recovered as the amount itself is hardly about Rs.40,000/-. In the circumstances, therefore, I find no merit on the principal contention of the petitioner that there was any violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 27.01.2012 lmv HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.670 of 2001 27.01.2012 lmv