IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.18563 OF 2009 Between: Ch. Veerabhadreswara Rao & another ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh & two others .....Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.18563 OF 2009 ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. 2. Heard Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel representing respondent No.3. 3. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel representing the petitioners, had taken this Court through the order under challenge in this writ petition and would maintain that by virtue of the order under challenge, the petitioners are deprived of the opportunity of cross- examination of the enquiry officer and it would amount to non-giving of reasonable opportunity. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in RUPADHAR PUJARI v. GANGADHAR BHATRA[1]. 4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the reasons recorded, it is a fit case to be interfered with by this Court. 5. Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, had taken this Court through certain prior proceedings and would maintain that there is non-cooperation from the writ petitioners and by hook or crook the proceedings are being postponed; in the light of the said conduct of the writ petitioners, respondent No.3 is put to irreparable loss. Learned counsel also pointed out to the order made in W.P. No.22958 of 2007 and also the order made in W.A. No.1506 of 2008 and would maintain that in the light of the clear observations made in W.A. No.1506 of 2008 also, no further opportunity need be given to the writ petitioners and hence the writ petition is to be dismissed. 6. The writ petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the common order dated 11-08-2009 made by the Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Kakinada, respondent No.2 herein, on the ground that the order is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Societies Act”) and further prayed for a direction to direct respondent No.2 to reopen the Surcharge Case Nos.1626/2005-D1, D2 and D3 by allowing I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2009 and pass such other orders. 7. The facts in detail had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 8. It is stated that if the order of respondent No.2 is allowed to stand, would occasion in failure and also miscarriage of justice. The averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications for recalling PW.1 also had been pointed out. 9. Several facts, which have been narrated in detail, need not be dealt with in elaboration. 10. The Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Kakinada, East Godavari District, observed that on perusal of the petitions and the counter filed by the respondents and upon perusing the records, it is found that the petitioners were given sufficient reasonable opportunity and the cross-examination of the enquiry officer on important aspects had also been completed and there is no reasonable ground to reopen the evidence of the enquiry officer and the petitioners are at liberty to adduce evidence on their behalf to disprove the allegations made in the enquiry report and accordingly the petitions were dismissed and for further enquiry for respondents evidence, the matter was posted to 05-09-2009 at 11-00 AM. 11. It is no doubt true that the writ petitioners along with certain others filed W.P. No.22958 of 2007 praying for appointment of an officer higher in rank than the present enquiry officer for conducting surcharge proceedings on the ground of bias. The learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 02-09-2008 and the matter was carried in W.A. No.1506 of 2008 and the learned Division Bench also dismissed the same by order dated 24-11-2008. At paragraph No.16 in the appeal, no doubt, it is observed that it is further brought to the notice of this Court that the said superior officer was already examined-in-chief and also cross-examined by the petitioners, therefore, after the cross-examination, presence of PW.1 became totally irrelevant and is not required for any other purpose. It was further observed that mere presence of the superior officer in the capacity of a witness cannot be termed as a source for likelihood of bias in the surcharge proceedings, particularly as was recorded by the learned single Judge that the said superior officer has no administrative control whatsoever on the authority under Section 60(1) of the Act. It is needless to say that these observations were made by the learned Division Bench in the context of the ground of bias. 12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court referred supra wherein at paragraph No.8, it was observed that in a recent decision by a Constitution Bench in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta [(2003) 3 SCC 272], once again reminds us to remember that laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantive and real justice. Procedural laws must be liberally constructed to really serve as handmaid of justice, make them workable and advance the ends of justice. Technical objections which tend to be stumbling blocks to defeat and deny substantial and effective justice should be strictly viewed for being discouraged, except where the mandate of the law inevitably necessitates it. 13. There cannot be any quarrel as far as the proposition which had been specified in the above decision. 14. But, here is a case where it is complained that the petitioners are not cooperating at all and they have been challenging the proceedings on one ground or the other by filing successive writ petitions and the object of them is only to see that the proceedings are not finalized. This conduct of the petitioners also cannot be lost sight off. 15. However, in the technical facts situation, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioners, but it is made clear that no further opportunity would be given. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to fix a date and on the date so fixed, if the petitioners would not cooperate and would not proceed further with the cross- examination, it is at liberty to pass appropriate order. It is also made clear that no further opportunity would be given to the writ petitioners in this regard. 16. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside and to the extent indicated above, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J September 10, 2009. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within four (4) days. (B/O) PV [1] (2004) 7 SCC 654