IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4351 and 4353 of 2008 BETWEEN: B.S. Rama Rao. ... PETITIONER AND The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kodada and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. M. VENKATRAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. T. AMARNATH GOUD The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Petitioner, who was Ex- Paid Secretary of the first respondent society, was subjected to an enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by two separate surcharge proceedings being Rc.No.315/2001-E dated 01.11.2003 and Rc.No.315/2001-E dated 22.09.2003 respectively under Section 60 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed appeals being CTA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2004 before the Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal. In the appeals, the tribunal was of the view that out of the various items on which the surcharge proceedings are initiated only some of the items are covered by the said enquiry and as such, the tribunal was of the view that the surcharge orders are required to be set aside and the matter was required to be remitted to the surcharging authority for reexamination. However, the tribunal was of the view that the liability fixed on the petitioner to the extent of Rs.35,875/- and Rs.1,31,868/- respectively was justified and for rest of the items the enquiries were remanded for fresh disposal under Section 60 of the Act. 2. To the aforesaid extent, which virtually amounts to dismissing the appeals of the petitioner to the extent of liability of Rs.35,875/- and Rs.1,31,868/- respectively, the present revision petitions are preferred by the petitioner. 3. By separate interim orders of this Court dated 30.09.2008 passed in these revisions while admitting the same, the petitioner was imposed a condition to deposit half of the amount ordered by the tribunal and subject to that the impugned order of the tribunal was suspended. Both the counsel confirm that the said conditional orders has been complied with. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The impugned order of the tribunal discloses that the tribunal itself was not satisfied with respect to various charges found against the petitioner in both the surcharge orders referred to above. The tribunal was also of the view that the enquiry under Section 60 of the Act has not been properly conducted by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The tribunal, however, has severed some part of the charges from the rest and has partly held that the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts, mentioned above, whereas for rest of the charges a fresh enquiry is required to be conducted under Section 60 of the Act. A reading of the impugned order, however, shows that the tribunal was not at all satisfied with the manner in which the orders under Section 60 of the Act were passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Since all the charges emanate from an enquiry under Section 60 of the Act, in fairness to the petitioner, if the tribunal was not satisfied with the order of the Deputy Registrar under Section 60 of the Act the entire order ought to have been set side and order for reexamination ought to have been with respect to all the charges. The impugned order of the tribunal shows that the order of the Deputy Registrar under Section 60 of the Act has been sustained in part and set aside for rest of the charges. This would result in some prejudice to the petitioner during the remand enquiry ordered by the tribunal. 6. I am, therefore, of the view that since the Deputy Registrar is, in any case, required to reexamine the charges appearing against the petitioner, even with regard to the charges on which the liability is upheld by the tribunal, the same is required to be treated as prima facie and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies shall reexamine all the charges under Section 60 enquiry and pass appropriate orders so as avoid overlapping of charges and prejudice to the petitioner. The amounts deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of interim orders shall abide by the result of the fresh enquiry, as ordered above and the Deputy Registrar is directed to give one opportunity each to the petitioner and the first respondent and reexamine the matter and pass appropriate orders under Section 60 of the Act preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 3, 2010 Note: Office to despatch the copy of the order within one week. (B/o) DSK