THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.17890, 17898 & 17945 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: One and the same individual filed these three writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner functioned as President of Chinanindrakolanu Large Sized Cooperative Society Limited, in Nidamarru Mandal of West Godavari District, with effect from 01.08.1995. On receiving the allegations about mismanagement of the affairs of the society, enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) was ordered against him. One Sri G.Venkataratnam, Cooperative Sub-Registrar of Societies, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings, dated 21.12.1996. As many as 9 irregularities were pointed out mainly against the petitioner in the report, dated 13.07.1997. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Eluru, the 1st respondent, issued as many as three show cause notices to the petitioner covering separate amounts, based on the same enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notices. Not being satisfied with the same, the 1st respondent passed surcharge orders. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed three separate appeals before the Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, being O.A.Nos.63, 121 and 122 of 1998. Through separate orders, dated 06.08.2001, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Hence, these three Writ Petitions. The petitioner contends that he was not at all responsible for the irregularities alleged against him. He contends that on account of his ill-health, he entrusted the management of the society and delegated his powers to the Secretary and still he alone was held responsible. Detailed counter-affidavits are filed by and on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the allegations against the petitioner were proved, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and the petitioner is not able to point out as to how the findings recorded against him, are untenable. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and learned Counsel for the Society. The petitioner functioned as President of the society for one term, with effect from 01.08.1995. Within a short time from the date of assumption of office by the petitioner, serious allegations came to be noticed by the officials of the Cooperative Department. Irregularities were pointed out on separate aspects. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent issued three separate surcharge notices to the petitioner. The petitioner no doubt submitted his explanation and denied the allegations against him. However, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the 1st respondent. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to adduce his own evidence. It is not as if that the 1st respondent has taken into account, the findings recorded in the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Independent assessment of the matter was undertaken and conclusions were arrived at. The Tribunal has also dealt with each and every ground urged by the petitioner and it was found that the surcharge orders passed by the 1st respondent, do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. The scope of interference by this Court, in matters of this nature is very limited. The Tribunal happens to be last forum on facts. The petitioner is not able to point out as to which of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, are perverse, or are based on no evidence. The plea of the petitioner that he entrusted the management of the society to the Secretary, cannot be accepted. The Act and the Rules provide for mechanism, for the management of the society, in the event of the President being not in a position to discharge his duties. The petitioner was not at all justified in entrusting the management to the Secretary. In case, he was handicapped from functioning, he ought to have reported the matter to the Authorities of the Department, who, in turn, would have passed orders enabling either Vice-President of the Society or any other, to manage the affairs of the society. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petitions. Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. It is represented that in compliance with the conditions imposed by this Court, while granting interim orders, the petitioner has deposited substantial amounts. He is granted three months time to pay the balance of the amounts under the surcharge orders. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11.06.2010. GJ