THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13648 of 2002 DATE: 02.02.2010 Between: J.Swamy Naidu …Petitioner and The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Vizianagaram and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS : SRI P.RAMESWARA PRASAD FOR MR. V.MALLIK COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 : AGP FOR COOPERATION THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13648 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order, dated 03.04.2002 in O.A.No.162 of 1998 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada (for short ‘the Tribunal’). I have heard Sri P.Rameswara Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondents 1 and 3. The petitioner was the President of respondent No.2 society from 1969-76. An enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) was held into the affairs of the said society. In addition to the same, a statutory inspection was held under Section 52 of the Act. On the basis of the reports submitted by the inquiring and the inspection authorities, surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act were initiated. After giving the petitioner an opportunity of explaining the alleged irregularities, an order was passed on 08.12.1980 under Section 60 of the Act making the petitioner liable for payment of Rs.9,742.63 ps. with interest @ 18% per annum from 30.12.1978. The petitioner failed to question this order immediately and as he neglected to pay the surcharge amount, respondent No.1 issued notice on 10.02.1998 calling upon the petitioner to pay the surcharge amount. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.A.No.162 of 1998 before the Tribunal questioning the surcharge order. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted that he was not aware of the surcharge order passed against him and that it is only after receipt of the notice in 1998 that he could know about passing of the said surcharge order. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that both in the proceedings initiated under Section 51 and in the inspection held under Section 52 of the Act, the petitioner was given notices and he accordingly participated in the said proceedings. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner was given notice in the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act and in pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.03.1979 and after considering the said explanation, surcharge order was passed on 08.12.1980. The Tribunal accordingly concluded that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to contest the said proceedings and therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice in passing the surcharge order. As regards the factum of communicating the surcharge order, no specific finding has been rendered by the Tribunal. But the petitioner who was the President of the society for nearly seven years and who participated in the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, in the inspection proceedings under Section 52 of the Act and in the surcharge proceedings, cannot plead ignorance of passing of the surcharge order. Even if he was not officially communicated with the surcharge order, he should have been diligent enough to question the order immediately. Be that as it may, even assuming that the petitioner was not communicated with the surcharge order, he could not raise any legal plea regarding the invalidity of the surcharge order. As noted above, the Tribunal, on a perusal of the record, has given a categorical finding that at every stage, the petitioner was given an opportunity to put forth his case in all the proceedings including the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act culminating in passing of the surcharge order. Therefore, the petitioner failed to make out a case before the Tribunal for invalidating the surcharge order. The Tribunal having considered the entire gamut of the facts rejected the contention of the petitioner that the surcharge order was vitiated by non-observance of principles of natural justice. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not review the finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the record made available before it. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni