THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6513 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a certiorari to call for the records relating to proceedings, dated 21.02.2004, for attachment of his property and sale notice, dated 04.03.2004, issued by the first respondent – Divisional Cooperative Officer, Siddipet, Medak District, and to quash the same. Petitioner was the President of the second respondent – Venkataraopet Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Thogatha Mandal, Medak District. On the allegation that he has misappropriated the funds of the society, on the claim made by the second respondent, order of surcharge was passed by the first respondent at the first instance on 03.10.1987 vide Rc.No.2226/84/B, to recover an amount of Rs.39,892/-, under Section 60(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). Against the said order, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal i.e. Munsif Magistrate Court, Siddipet, in CTA.No.7 of 1988, which in turn, was allowed by the Cooperative Tribunal and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. It is the grievance of the petitioner that after remand order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, no notice was issued, no enquiry was conducted and without passing any fresh order under Section 60(1) of the Act, the first respondent issued the impugned proceedings for attachment of his property and sale notice. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent. In the counter-affidavit, while giving details of the facts, it is clearly stated that after the Cooperative Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner by remanding the matter to the first respondent, notice was issued to him and fresh order of surcharge was passed on 22.07.1994 in Office Reference No.2226/84/B and it was served on the petitioner on 29.07.1994. It is stated that the first respondent has taken further steps for attachment of sale of the property of the petitioner to enforce such order. Although it is the case of the petitioner that no fresh order is passed, from the counter-affidavit, it is clear that after the Cooperative Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, the first respondent passed orders afresh on 22.07.1994 in Reference No.2226/84/B. In that view of the matter, as the said order has become final, it is open for the respondents to take steps to enforce the said order of surcharge passed against the petitioner. In view of passing of order by the first respondent afresh on 22.07.1994 vide Office Reference No.2226/84/B, it cannot be said that the sale notice was issued without passing any fresh order, and at the same time, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such order, it is open to him to question the same. Granting liberty to the petitioner to question order, dated 22.07.1994, passed by the first respondent, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th MARCH, 2011. kvni