IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TENCH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7789 of 2008 Between: S. Raja Kakarlapudi Laxmikanta Raju S/o S.R.K. Soma Surya Narayana Raju, R/o D. No. 7-144, Katrenikonda, Katrenikonda, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Agricultural & Co-operation (Coopn.) Department rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The District Co-operative officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 4 Katrenikonda PACS, rep by its Secretary, D. Ramakrishnam Raju, Katrenikonda mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring 1) to declare the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary issuing proceedings dated 15-12-2007, 2. to direct the 1st respondent to decide the as per Memo No. 10715/Cop.V(1)/2007-1, dated 26-07-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Surcharge Order dated 15.12.2007, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to decide the Memo dated 26.7.2007. The petitioner asserts that he was elected as President of Katrenikona P.A.C.S. and during his tenure, some financial irregularities were committed such as misappropriation of funds. The 3rd respondent- Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies issued Surcharge Notice dated 2.6.2007 directing the petitioner to file his objections if any, and the 1st respondent-Government stayed the Notice vide its Memo dated 26.7.2007. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though he did not misappropriate the funds of the Society, the 3rd respondent, without affording any opportunity to him to put forth his version, issued the impugned Surcharge Order dated 15.12.2007 directing the petitioner and two others to restore an amount of Rs.1,33,171.84 towards misappropriation of funds in order to replenish the deficiency caused to the assets of the Society. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the simple reason that an appeal lies under Section 76 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity “the Act), and the petitioner without exhausting such alternative remedy, has filed this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner prefers an appeal along with a petition to condone the delay in filing such appeal, the appellate authority may condone the delay, entertain the appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Further, inasmuch as the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the Surcharge Notice dated 2.6.2007 was stayed by the 1st respondent-Government vide its Memo dated 26.7.2007, and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to put forth his grievance, both the Memo dated 26.7.2007 and the Surcharge Order dated 15.12.2007, shall be kept in abeyance till the appeal is entertained. No costs. ______________ 10.04.2008 bcj