HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.15648 of 2010 Date : 20-12-2010 Between : V.Zakaraiah Mohan Chandra Kumar .. Petitioner And The Enquiry Officer, Rajampet Cooperative Town Bank, Rajampet, Kadapa District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Koneti Raja Reddy Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Co-operation The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings dated 1-4-2010 of respondent No.4 whereby he has ordered the petitioner’s prosecution under Section 79(1)(e) r/w. Section 79(2) of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). I have heard Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation. The petitioner is Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, presently working in the office of respondent No.3. At the relevant time, he worked as Liquidator for Rajampet Co-operative Town Bank Limited (for short, “the Bank”) from 7-1-2008 to 28- 4-2008. Enquiry into the affairs of the Bank was held under Section 51 of the Act. The enquiry officer while fixing liability on various officers who worked in the Bank, made several recommendations. As regards the handing over of cash book, vouchers and minutes books, the enquiry officer has found that the petitioner’s predecessor Sri M.Venkatachalam has not handed over the cash books from 30- 4-2007 to 9-7-2010 and from 10-7-2007 to 6-1-2008, vouchers from 10-8-2007 to 6-1-2008 and minutes books from 5-7-2002 to 28- 4-2008. Obviously, on account of non-handing over of the minutes book by his predecessor, the petitioner has opened a new book on 7- 1-2008. The only finding rendered against the petitioner by the enquiry officer was that he has not handed over separate minutes book maintained by him for the period from 7-1-2008 to 28-4-2008. It is the further case of the petitioner that as his successor has not agreed to receive the minutes book, he could not hand it over and that during the enquiry held under Section 51 of the Act, the same was handed over to the enquiry officer. While considering the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, respondent No.4, has, by the impugned order directed the petitioner’s prosecution as recommended by the enquiry officer. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted and in my view correctly that the provisions of Section 79(1)(e) of the Act under which the petitioner was directed to be prosecuted do not apply to the employees of the Co-operative Department and that therefore the impugned direction given by respondent No.4 for prosecution of the petitioner cannot be sustained. It is useful to consider Section 79(1)(e) of the Act which is reproduced hereunder : “It shall be an offence under this Act, if the committee or a member thereof wilfully fails to produce books, accounts, documents, records, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the society.” The above noted provision clearly and unequivocally applies only to the Committee or a Member thereof and not to any employee like the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader has however relied on Section 79(1)(c) of the Act, which reads : “It shall be an offence under this Act, if any person wilfully withholds or fails to furnish any information lawfully required from him by a person authorised in this behalf under the provisions of this Act.” In my opinion, Section 79(1)(c) of the Act has no application to the facts of the present case because there is no allegation that the petitioner withheld any information. The only allegation against him is that he did not handover the minutes books to his successor. Assuming that the phrase ‘information’ takes within its sweep registers such as minutes book, the sine qua non for ordering prosecution of a person is that he must willfully withhold such information. The enquiry officer has not given any finding in his report that the petitioner is guilty of willfully withholding the minutes book. Therefore, the above mentioned statutory provisions have no application to the petitioner and consequently the impugned order directing his prosecution cannot be sustained in law. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. ____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 20-12-2010 L.R. copies to be marked : YES/NO AM