IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1148 OF 2008 Between: Medisetti Sriramulu ......petitioner AND The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Machilipatnam and another ......Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1148 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada dismissing the petitioner’s application M.P.17/A of 2007 in appeal S.R.No.1140 of 2006. The petitioner had filed the said application seeking condonation of delay of 1135 days in preferring the appeal S.R.No.1140 of 2006 against the surcharge orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (for short, ‘the Society’) against the petitioner. In the said appeal, the petitioner contended that the said surcharge order dated 19.02.2004 passed in R.C.No.2638/03/D was not communicated to him. He claims that he has obtained a certified copy of the said order on 01.12.2006 and has filed the present appeal however, has sought condonation of delay as aforesaid. He had also enclosed medical certificate in support of his further contention that he was unwell. The said application was contested and by the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the said application. Questioning the said order, the present revision is preferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel reiterates his contention raised in the affidavit filed in support of said application and submits that the petitioner was the past president of the Society and the amounts were paid to the paid secretaries and the entire amount for which the said surcharge proceedings are issued relates to secretary’s festival advance, secretary’s vehicle advance, president’s advances etc., and submits that the Government has under G.O.Ms No.308, Agriculture and Co-operation (Coop.VI) Department, dated 30.12.2006 has waived and regularized all payments to the paid secretaries as regular expenditure. Learned counsel therefore states that if the amounts paid to the secretaries in terms of the G.O. aforesaid are to be treated as regular expenditure, there will be no surcharge against the petitioner. The learned counsel also states that the appeal could not be filed earlier on account of the surcharge order being not communicated to the petitioner as stated in the affidavit. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and it is evident from the impugned order that the non-communication of the surcharge order as alleged by the petitioner does not appear to be correct inasmuch as While contesting the present application respondent No.1 has produced on record an affidavit that the said award was sent by registered post acknowledgement due on 03.03.2004 and acknowledged the petitioner on 10.03.2004. The acknowledgement duly received from the office of respondent No.1-Society dated 10.03.2004 was also produced together with entry in the dispatch register. The Tribunal therefore has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s contention that the surcharge order was not communicated is factually incorrect. The Tribunal also found that the medical certificate on which the petitioner is placing reliance is in fact dated 14.08.2007 whereas the default or the delay is much earlier there to. In view of that, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay. After giving earnest consideration, I am unable to find any error in the said order, which warrants correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the Government had regularized certain payments to paid secretaries in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.308, dated 30.12.2006 referred to above, the petitioner shall have liberty to make appropriate representation to the competent authority for extending the benefit of the said G.O. so as to minimize his liability under the surcharge order. Subject to the said observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J Date: 17.06.2010 Ivd