THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21163 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner functioned as Secretary of the Golugonda Mandal Teachers Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Inspection, under Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short “the Act”) was caused, into the aﬀairs of the Society. Certain ﬁndings were recorded against the petitioner. The same gave rise to surcharge proceedings, under Section 60 of the Act, and an order dated 28.6.2003 was passed, against the petitioner. He ﬁled O.A.No.50 of 2007, before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. An order of interim stay was granted on 2.7.2007 in M.A.No.26 of 2007. The said proceedings are pending. The District Cooperative Officer, Visakhapatnam, the 1st respondent herein, directed enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, into the aﬀairs of the Society. Almost the same ﬁndings were repeated, against the petitioner. Based upon this report, surcharge proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent, vide notice dated 4.9.2008. The petitioner challenges the same. Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the subject matter of inspection, under Section 52 of the Act, and enquiry under Section 51, was one and the same, so much so, the amount indicated against the petitioner is identical. He contends that once the petitioner has been subjected to surcharge proceedings, as regards certain transactions, he cannot be made to face identical proceedings for the same amount. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation submits that the purpose and object underlying the inspection, under Section 52 of the Act, is different from the enquiry, under Section 51. He contends that the petitioner can put forward all his objections, in the on-going surcharge proceedings, and the writ petition is not maintainable, against the impugned notice. With a view to ensure proper functioning of societies, the legislation has provided for three measures viz; enquiry, inspection and audit, under Sections 51, 52 and 53 of the Act. This is in addition to the internal mechanism evolved by the respective societies. Section 60 of the Act provides for initiation of surcharge proceedings, on the basis of the ﬁndings recorded in the enquiry, inspection or audit, as the case may be, subject to certain preliminary steps. The report has to be placed before the general body of the society, and based on its recommendations, or the directions to it by the Registrar, surcharge proceedings are to be initiated. It may be true that the purpose of various steps mentioned above, under the relevant provisions and the ﬁndings therein, are diﬀerent from each other. Where, however, the same acts or omissions have already been enquired into, under one such measures, and they have given raise to the surcharge proceedings, it is impermissible to resort to another measure, and thereafter to initiate surcharge proceedings. Such a course would result in initiation of two sets of proceedings, for one and the same cause. In the instant case, in an inspection caused under Section 52 of the Act, the petitioner was found responsible for an amount of Rs.6,50,353/- under six separate heads. After following the prescribed procedure, notice under Section 60(1) of the Act was issued and an order of surcharge was passed on 28.6.2003, holding that the amount of Rs.6,50,353/- is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. He availed the remedy of appeal, under Section 76 of the Act, and the appeal is pending. Enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was caused into the ﬁnancial irregularities of the Society. To this extent, there cannot be any diﬃculty. However, the ﬁndings mentioned in the enquiry are nothing but those, indicated in the report of inspection under Section 52 of the Act. As though this duplicity is not suﬃcient, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned notice, initiating the surcharge proceedings. Had there been diﬀerence between the purport of the surcharge, which was already concluded against the petitioner, and the one, which is initiated, there would have been some basis for the 2nd respondent, to proceed with the present exercise. Except changing the language to describe the amount said to have been misappropriated by the petitioner in certain respects, there is no diﬀerence between the two sets of proceedings. The following two statements would demonstrate the same. “Abstract in surcharge proceedings, dated 28.6.2003, based upon inspection under Section 52 of the Act. ________________________________________________________ Sl.No. Item of fraud Amount ________________________________________________________ 1. Misappropriation of amount by way 3,52,385-00 of benami loans/benami transactions. 2. Loans said to be cleared but not 30,433-00 cleared as per loan accounts of the members with reference to cash book. 3. Amount collected from members by 1,77,755-00 issuing hand receipts letters to MPDO, to stop further recoveries and no dues certificates of 19 loans. 4. Amount collected by way of cheques 65,380-00 but not brought to cash book. 5. Short collection of share capital 20,600-00 6. Bogus receipt issued to members but not brought to cash book. _______________ Total : 6,50,353-00 ______________________________________________________________ “Basis indicated in the impugned proceedings, on the strength of enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act” S.No Item of fraud Amount of fraud N a m e of delinquent 1. Benami loans/Benami transactions/falsification of A/cs. in respect of 10 loans by the Ex-Secretary. 3,52,385- 00 Sri S. Ramu 2. Loans said to be closed but not cleared a per l o a n s accounts of the members with reference to cash book. 30,433-00 Sri S. Ramu 3. Amount collected from the 19 members by issuing hand receipts but not brought to cash book and issued no due certiﬁcates to the concerned. 1,77,755- 00 Sri S. Ramu 4. Amounts collected by way of cheques, but not brought to cash book. 65,380- 00 Sri S. Ramu 5. Collection of short share capital from the members while issuing the loans. 20,600- 00 Sri S. Ramu 6. Bogus receipts issued to the members but not brought to cash book. 3,800- 00 Sri S. Ramu Total 6,50,353- 00 The only diﬀerence is that slightly diﬀerent language was employed to describe items 1 and 5. Not only the total amount, but also the individual items are identical. Once the petitioner has been subjected to surcharge proceedings for the amounts referred to above, the question of initiation of another set of proceedings, does not arise. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 29th September 2008 Note: L.R. Copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN