IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 903 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/06/2009 in WP NO : 11797 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 V. Babu Rao, s/o. Perraju, Rangampeta PACS, R/o. Rangapeta Village & Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 K. Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. Subhadrampeta, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 2 The Rangampeta Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Rangampeta, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. Represented by its Secretary. 3 Special Cadre Deputy Registrar/Officer on special Duty District Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No. 903 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt Justice T.Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.M.P.No.15195 of 2009 in W.P.No.11797 of 2009 on 17.6.2009. The appellants are the writ petitioners. They have filed an appeal in O.A. No.42 of 2007 seeking to set aside the surcharge order vide Rc.No.650/2001-D(2), dated 1.4.2006 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Peddapuram. The Tribunal having observed that the appellants have failed to adduce any material except the self serving statements to show as to why the enquiry report shall not be considered, that the appeal is initiated after the sale in execution proceedings apart from the fact that the conduct of the appellants is not bona fide and that there is no illegality in the order impugned therein, dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved thereby, they have filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the order dated 30.4.2009 passed in O.A. No.42 of 2007 confirming the surcharge orders in R.C.No.650/2001/D(2), dated 1.4.2006 passed by the first respondent. Along with the said writ petition, they have also filed W.P.M.P.No.15195 of 2009 seeking to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the surcharge orders passed by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.650/2001/D(2), dated 1.4.2006 including confirmation of sale pertaining to the House No.6-536, Rangampeta village and Ac.3.82 cents in Sy.Nos. 19/2, 19/3, 30/1 and 30/2, Subhadrampeta village, Mandal East Godavari District. The learned single Judge dismissed the said W.P.M.P. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioners. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material available on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that there was stay all along the pendency of the O.A and that the appellants are continuously in possession and enjoyment of the property in question and in view of the fact that the O.A. is dismissed, there is every likelihood of the appellants being dispossessed and, therefore, if the surcharge proceedings inclusive of any further proceedings pursuant thereto, are not stayed, the very purpose of filing the writ petition, which is pending before the learned single Judge, will be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of nature of the proceedings leading to filing of the O.A and also in view of pendency of the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel that it is a fit case wherein stay can be granted subject, however, to imposition of a condition. Accordingly, there shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the surcharge orders issued by the first respondent in Rc.No.650/2001/D(2), dated 1.4.2006 including confirmation of sale pertaining to the property in question, on condition of the appellants depositing 1/3 of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated. Subject to the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. The Registry is, however, directed to post the writ petition on 25th August, 2009 for final hearing. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar MAS 10th July, 2009