THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 21429 of 2003 Dated: 11.11.2010 Between: Medisetti Ramachandra Rao and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Karapa Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., Karapa and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 21429 of 2003 ORDER: Petitioners are the sons of one Lingamurthy, who was the President of the first respondent-society. On the basis of an enquiry held under Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) into the affairs of the first respondent-society, a surcharge order dated 15.04.1991 was passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 60 of the Act making the father of the petitioners responsible for the loss suffered by the society and directing him to make good the loss. Aggrieved by the same, the father of the petitioners filed an appeal-O.A.No. 181 of 1996 before the A.P.Co- operative Tribunal, Vijayawada. Pending the said appeal, the father of the petitioners died and consequently the petitioners were brought on record as the legal representatives. The Tribunal, by order dated 07.10.2002 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the surcharge order dated 15.04.1991. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. It is primarily contended on behalf of the petitioners that the surcharge order dated 15.04.1991 as confirmed by the Tribunal on appeal is liable to be set aside since the 2nd respondent while passing the surcharge order failed to conduct any independent enquiry as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Challa Sanyasinaidu v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Srikakulam[1] A perusal of the surcharge order shows that except the enquiry conducted under Section 52 of the Act, no independent enquiry was held by the 2nd respondent and no opportunity was given to the father of the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements formed basis for surcharge proceedings before passing the impugned order. As held in Challa Sanyasinaidu’s case (1 supra) such procedure being contrary to the principles of natural justice vitiates the surcharge order. The same principle has been reiterated in a recent decision in V.V.Satyanarayana v. Chebrolu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd.,[2]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry following due process of law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 11.11.2010 KLP [1] 1998 (1) ALT 482. [2] 2009(5) ALT 92