THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10020 of 2007 ORDER: Sri Rama Sugars Staff & Workers Industrial Housing Society Limited (for short ‘the Society’) was registered in the year 1960. It is said to have purchased an extent of Acs.2.00 of land, through sale deed, dated 07.12.1960. The District Co-operative Officer, Vizianagaram and the Deputy Registrar-cum-Divisional Co-operative Officer, Parvathipuram, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein respectively, have initiated proceedings for liquidation of the Society. Accordingly, orders were passed on 31.03.1986 and 01.09.1986 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1964, directing liquidation. The land is said to have been sold in the process of liquidation and initially, the same was purchased by respondent No.4 and thereafter, by respondent Nos.5 and 6. A person claiming to be the President of the Society filed W.P.No.11461 of 2004 assailing the liquidation proceedings. The same was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner therein to avail the remedy of appeal before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal. Sri Vadapalli Butchi Venkata Rao claiming to be the Treasurer of the Society presented an appeal before the Tribunal. The same was numbered as O.A.No.103 of 2006. Through its order, dated 24.04.2007, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on two grounds, namely that it is filed beyond limitation and that the appellant is not the petitioner in W.P.No.11461 of 2004. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri S.Ganesh Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. Though the writ petition is filed in the name of the Society, it is said to be represented by the Treasurer. The byelaws, which empowers a Treasurer of the society to institute or defend the proceedings before the Court of law, are not cited either before this Court or before the Tribunal. Further, W.P.No.11461 of 2004 was filed by a person, who claimed to be the President. Though it is debatable as to whether there can be a President for a society, which was liquidated, the fact remains that the said President has not chosen to prefer the appeal. The present petitioner cannot maintain the appeal, since he did not figure as a party in W.P.No.11461 of 2004. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the Tribunal examined the same in detail and found that the appeal was barred by limitation. In the appeal, the orders of liquidation passed in the year 1986, consequential orders and the sale proceedings were challenged. The Tribunal observed that even assuming that the date of knowledge can be taken as the starting point, it felt that no application for condonation of delay, at least, from the date of knowledge was filed. The petitioner is not able to point out as to how the two grounds mentioned in the order passed by the Tribunal are untenable in law. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. This order shall not, however, be treated as precluding the persons, who are otherwise competent in law, from prosecuting their remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.04.2010. kdl