THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.33147 of 2011 Date:30.12.2011 Between: V. Chinnayya Naidu. ……….Petitioner. And The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Yallamanchili Visakhapatnam District and another. ……….Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.33147 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Though the 2nd respondent was served with the notice but he is not represented either in person or through the counsel. Therefore, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the impugned letter dated 09-04-2011 of the 2nd respondent as illegal and set aside the same and further direct the 2nd respondent herein to pay the entire balance of subsistence allowance of ` 69,926-50 to the petitioner forthwith. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Assistant Secretary in the 2nd respondent Society. While so, surcharge proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner into which an enquiry was conducted and ultimately by proceedings dated 29-05-2003, the petitioner held not guilty. Thereafter, a new manager came, who raised the petitioner under suspension by letter dated 27-12-2004, questioning which, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8804 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18-4-2009 directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law. Consequently, by proceedings dated 27-11-2009, the petitioner was removed from service. Questioning the said removal order, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.5998 of 2010. While in WPMP No.7730 of 2010, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondent to pay the subsistence allowance and this Court, by order dated 08-12-2010 passed an interim order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowances. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent paid some amount to the petitioner towards the subsistence allowances. Still the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of ` 69,926-50 towards the subsistence allowance. The petitioner also contends that he is also entitled to ` 29,513/-, which is a part of the total amount of ` 69,926-50. In respect of the said amount i.e., an amount of ` 29,513/-, the petitioner says that as per the letter dated 09- 04-2011 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner informing that by letter dated 09-04-2011, the President of the 2nd respondent-Society certified that the payment of subsistence allowances to the petitioner from the date of the suspension till the date of removal has been paid and also further contends that an amount of ` 6,905/- was also paid as an excess amount. It is also stated in the letter that a balance of ` 29,513/- is paid by way of cheque bearing No.153305 credited to the State Bank of India, Kothakota Branch dated 27-7-2011. The contention of the petitioner is that when the petitioner approached the bank i.e., the State Bank of India, Kothakota Branch to verify the same, the Bank issued a letter dated 24-6-2011 to the effect that no cheque bearing No.153305 has been received by the bank. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pending consideration of the main claim i.e., a total claim of ` 69,926-50, the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of ` 29,530/- forthwith as it is an admitted amount. Based on the said amount averred in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by not paying the substance allowances to the petitioner for the period in respect of the suspension of the petitioner before removal, the petitioner is put to hardship. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to pay the amount claimed in the writ petition. All the facts narrated in the writ petition are disputed questions of facts. No representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent against whom the petitioner made the claim. 4. Under these circumstances, it is not desirable to pass the orders on merits of the case. It is also the case of the petitioner that in respect of the injustice done by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner also reported the same to the 1st respondent but the 1st respondent had not taken any action. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage as under: “The petitioner is given a liberty to make appropriate representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order making all the claims with entire details, within four weeks thereafter, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs”. ______________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:30.12.2011. Note: Furnish CC within a week. B/O mrb