HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9946 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, erstwhile Chairman of a Cooperative Society, questions the surcharge notice dated 22.4.2010 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Warangal (5th respondent), whereby he was called upon to attend the hearing on 27.4.2010, at the office of the 5th respondent and to show cause why an amount of Rs.69,33,965/-, along with interest at 24%, should not be recovered jointly and severally from him, his spouse or from the guarantor who had signed on the loan applications. The petitioner was called upon to submit a detailed written statement accepting or denying the responsibility fixed on him by the enquiry officer failing which the surcharge inquiry would be completed based on the record and orders would be passed based on merits of the case without any further notice. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would raise several contentions on the merits of the dispute which this Court would not be justified in examining as these contentions can as well be put forth in the written statement which the petitioner has been called upon to file in reply to the impugned show cause notice. Learned Counsel would, however, submit that the 5th respondent had already prejudged the issue and was biased against the petitioner which was evident from the fact that the 5th respondent had lodged a Criminal Complaint against the petitioner before the Intejargunj Police Station, in Crime No.60 of 2010 under Sections 406, 409 and 420 I.P.C. According to the Learned Counsel, the 5th respondent was, therefore, not justified in issuing the impugned notice; and in deciding the matter pursuant thereto. A show cause notice would, ordinarily, be interdicted in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when it has been issued by an authority not competent to do so or where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. (Chief of Army Staff v. Major Dharan Pal Kukrety[1]). The impugned proceedings, dated 22.4.2010, calling upon the petitioner to show cause is a surcharge notice issued, pursuant to an enquiry held under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), under Section 60(1) of the Act. Section 60(1) enables the Registrar, either on his own or through any person authorized by him in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person or officer or servant and make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest at such rates as the Registrar may think just and proper. The proceedings under Section 60(1) of the Act can be initiated where an enquiry has been held under Section 51 of the Act. The present surcharge notice, under Section 60(1) of the Act, was pursuant to an enquiry held under Section 51 of the Act. The impugned show cause notice issued by the 5th respondent cannot, therefore, be said without jurisdiction. It is not even the petitioner’s case that the 5th respondent is either not competent, or does not have the jurisdiction, to issue the surcharge notice under Section 60(1) of the Act. It is his case that the 5th respondent is biased against him. Allegations of bias or malice can only be examined when the person against whom malice or bias is alleged is made a party respondent eo-nominee to the Writ petition. (State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma[2]). The petitioner has not chosen to array the 5th respondent by name. Even otherwise, the only allegation to sustain the plea of bias is that the 5th respondent has lodged a complaint under the provisions of the I.P.C. The mere fact that a complaint has been lodged against the petitioner would not necessitate the conclusion that the 5th respondent was biased against the petitioner as the 5th respondent had lodged the complaint in his official capacity. The circumstance of a criminal complaint being lodged against him by the 5th respondent would not suffice to establish bias as allegations of bias are easier made than established. Viewed from any angle, the challenge to the surcharge notice, issued under Section 60(1) of the Act on the ground that the 5th respondent was biased does not merit acceptance. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from submitting his written statement to the surcharge notice dated 224.2010 issue under Section 60(1) of the Act and participate in the enquiry proceedings. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 28-4-2010 Usd/asp/mrkr [1] AIR 1985 SC 703 [2] AIR 1991 SC 1260