HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 13691 of 2009 DATED: 13.08.2009 Between: B. Arunakumari .. Petitioner and The Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Society, Hyderabad The District Cooperative Officer, Machilipatnam The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudivada The Vadalai PACS Mudanapally Mandal, Krishna District O R D E R:- The petitioner states that based on a news item published in Vaartha, respondent No.2 directed the Assistant Registrar/Auditor to conduct an inspection and submit report. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar/Auditor conducted the inspection and submitted report. Based on the said report, respondent No.3 issued show cause notice dated 29.10.2008. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice stating that the inspection was conducted behind his back. Thereafter, the petitioner entered his appearance through counsel on 12.01.2009, and similarly situated persons also filed their objections stating that they do not come within the purview of Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and prayed to drop the surcharge proceedings. He states that he was informed that the next date of hearing would be communicated to them. However, respondent No.3 all of a sudden, issued notice dated 25.05.2009 directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner appeared through Advocate on 04.06.2009, on which day, the petitioner states that respondent No.3 directed her counsel to cross-examine the witnesses, and when the counsel requested for time to cross-examine the witnesses and also to furnish the statements of witnesses, the 3rd respondent, without furnishing the documents and without granting time, closed the proceedings. The petitioner states that he is not aware as to what happened after 12.01.2009. He does not even know as to who the witnesses are and who gave evidence. Therefore, his counsel filed applications praying to furnish the copies of the evidence of the witnesses recorded, to recall the witnesses, namely the Enquiry Officer and the President of PACS for evidence, and to furnish certified copies of the docket proceedings. The petitioner states that he also made representations to the higher-ups, requesting them to transfer the proceedings from the present officer to any other officer, but no action thereon had been taken. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not giving him opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and not furnishing the copies of the evidence recorded and the documents marked through them, and not re-opening the evidence, and not transferring the case to any other officer, as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and stated that on 19.12.2008, the 3rd respondent furnished copy of the Inspection Report along with copies of the enclosures to the counsel for the petitioner. In spite of granting time, the petitioner’s counsel could not cross-examine the Inspecting Officer and the President of Vadali PACS whose deposition was also recorded. It is further stated that the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 20.6.2009 seeking to transfer the matter to any competent authority is not justified, because the petitioner is only making attempts to drag on the matter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation and perused the material placed on record. On 29.7.2009, this Court observed that until and unless the affidavit dated 20.6.2009 filed by the petitioner in R.C. No.249 of 2008 is withdrawn, no relief can be granted. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed a memo withdrawing her affidavit-dated 20.6.2009 filed before the Deputy Cooperative Registrar, Gudivada in connection with R.C. No.249/2008/C, dated 29.10.2008. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the memo dated 01.08.2009, filed by the petitioner withdrawing the affidavit dated 22.06.2009 filed by her before the Deputy Co-operative Registrar in connection with R.C. No. 249/2008/C, dated 29.10.2008. Having regard to the above, and considering the fact that the only grievance of the petitioner is with regard to furnishing of copies of evidence of the witnesses and documents marked through them, which she contends, respondent No.3 refused to furnish, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: If the petitioner, as noted above, has filed affidavit withdrawing the affidavit dated 22.06.2009 filed by him before the Deputy Co- operative Registrar, unconditionally, then respondent No.3 is directed to furnish the copies of the depositions of the witnesses, and the documents, if any marked through the said witnesses, and fix a date for cross-examination of the said witnesses by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not take any adjournment. If the petitioner fails to co- operate with the enquiry proceedings, then respondent No.3 is at liberty to proceed further in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 13.09.2009 bcj