THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9287 of 2008 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not issuing proceedings by way of surcharge certificate to recover an amount of Rs.2,87,013/- from the fifth respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a retired Village Administrative Officer and the fifth respondent while working as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chinna Gottigallu, Chittoor District, misappropriated certain amount and in spite of specific objections in the audit reports prepared by the third respondent – District Audit Officer, State Audit, Ramnagar, Chittoor, no steps are being taken to recover that amount. The third respondent has filed counter-affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Department has pointed out certain irregularities in the financial transaction of Mandal Parishad, Chinna Gottigallu, Chittoor District and communicated the same to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chittoor. It is further stated that on receipt of the replies from the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chinna Gottigallu, certain objections were settled and remaining are pending for want of records and replies. It is further stated that certain objections were raised for non-production of records and violation of Rules, for an amount of Rs.2,84,559/- during 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. It is further stated that as per the Rules, the surcharge proceedings can be initiated only within a period of three (3) years from the date of completion of audit as such no steps can be taken. It is also stated that the fifth respondent was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau and was dismissed from service as per G.O.Ms.No.324, dated 02.09.1997. It is to be noticed that though it is alleged by the petitioner that the fifth respondent misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,87,013/- during 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, as evident from the audit report of the third respondent, details of the same are not furnished by him in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Further, it is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent that as per the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the surcharge can be ordered only within a period of three (3) years from the date of completion of audit. In view of the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent and in the absence of the petitioner furnishing particulars of misappropriation alleged to have been made by the fifth respondent, no direction can be issued as prayed for. It appears, due to animosity and to settle the scores with the fifth respondent, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this Writ Petition without furnishing necessary particulars in support of the relief sought by him. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni