THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.765 of 2011 DT.24.01.2011 Between: P.Rajeshan … Petitioner And The District Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karimnagar Division and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.D.Padmavathi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Cooperation The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.978/2009-L, dated 11.08.2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has called upon the petitioner submit his explanation as to why a sum of Rs.27,30,468/- shall not be recovered from him. I have heard Smt.D.Padmavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The petitioner is an Ex.President of TNGO Cooperative House Building Society. An inquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) was initiated and after the purported inquiry, a report was submitted, wherein responsibility was fixed on the petitioner. Acting on the said report, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notice. The principal ground, on which, the notice issued by respondent No.2 is questioned, is that the Inquiry Officer failed to complete the inquiry within four months as envisaged under Section 51 of the Act. In my opinion, Sections 51 and 60 of the Act are part of a statutory scheme, whereunder the irregularities, if any, committed in the affairs of the cooperative societies can be inquired into and proceedings for recovery of the amounts of the society found misused can be recovered by way of surcharge. Whether the inquiry was properly conducted or not and the inquiry report can be relied upon for fixing the responsibility on the persons concerned are the aspects, which need to be raised before and considered by the Registrar under Section 60 of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice. The petitioner is entitled to raise all legally sustainable objections before respondent No.2 in reply to the show-cause notice issued by him. In the light of the above facts, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation and direction to respondent No.2 to complete the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.934 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 24.01.2011 VGB