HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.14998 of 2011 Date : 2-9-2011 Between: K. Srinivas s/o.Hanumaiah .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Fisheries, Matsya Bhavan, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Ms.M. Vidyavathi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : A.G.P. for Fisheries Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8 : Sri G. Ramgopal for Sri G.Vijay Babu The court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the order of respondent No.2 in proceedings No.511/E/2006-1, dated 3-6-2011, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the President of the Fishermen Co- operative Society, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District (for short “the Society”). On the representation made by respondent Nos.4 to 8, who are the members of the Society, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to hold an inquiry into the allegations of corruption against the petitioner. After a purported inquiry, respondent No.3 submitted his report dated 14-12-2007 to respondent No.2 wherein the former has concluded that the petitioner has indulged in misappropriation of Rs.7,67,630/- and he requested respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act"). As no further action was initiated by respondent No.2, respondent Nos.4 to 8 filed W.P.No.30779/2010. In WPMP No.39167/2010 filed therein, this court passed an interim order dated 3-3-2011 directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the petitioner and another in pursuance of report dated 14-12-2007 of respondent No.3 in accordance with the provisions of the Act, within a period of one month. Purporting to act on this order, respondent No.2 appeared to have issued notice dated 9-5-2011 to the petitioner calling upon him why action shall not be initiated. The petitioner requested for a month’s time to submit his explanation, vide his communication dated 12-5-2011. While declining to grant the time, respondent No.2 has passed order in proceedings No.511/E/06, dated 26-5-2011 whereby he has directed the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.7,67,630/- within a period of one week, failing which the petitioner will be liable to be disqualified for continuing as a member of the Society. Respondent No.2 has passed another order in proceedings No.511/E/2006-1, dated 3-6-2011, holding that the petitioner is disqualified to continue as a member of the Society. This proceeding is assailed in the present Writ Petition. I have heard Ms.M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G. Ramgopal, learned counsel representing Sri G.Vijay Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the procedure followed by respondent No.2 does not satisfy the requirements of the provisions of Sections 50 to 52 of the Act. The respondents are unable to show that the ingredients necessary under the above mentioned provisions dealing with Audit, Inquiry and Inspection, respectively, are satisfied. Even the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries does not show that the enquiry ordered by respondent No.2 and held by respondent No.3, falls under Section 51 of the Act. As noted above, even respondent No.3 in his report requested respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner under Section 51 of the Act. This itself would clearly indicate that the inquiry ordered by respondent No.2 and held by respondent No.3, falls outside the scope of Section 51 of the Act and at best, the same can be treated as a preliminary enquiry. If respondent No.2, on perusal of such report, was satisfied that the inquiry under Section 51 of the Act is required to be held, he could, on his own motion, have ordered such an inquiry. Instead of following this procedure and having kept the inquiry report in cold storage for nearly 3½ years, respondent No.2 suddenly woke up, obviously on being sensitized by the order of this court, passed the impugned order, which has far reaching consequences, qua the petitioner. While the report submitted by respondent No.3 cannot be traced to Section 51 of the Act, the impugned order passed ignoring the provisions of Section 60 of the Act, cannot be sustained. Even in cases where a report under Section 51 of the Act is submitted, respondent No.2 is bound to take recourse to Section 60 of the Act for levy of surcharge by passing an order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, if it is ultimately found that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation. This view of mine is fortified by the Judgments of this court in S.Ramdas Vs. The Subordinate Judge and others [1], Hyderabad District Co-operative Central Bank Vs. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad and others [2] and T. Satyanarayana Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Eluru, West Godavari District [3]. As respondent No.2 failed to follow this mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act, the impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to initiate proceedings under Section 51 of the Act and depending upon the result thereof, to take further action under Section 60 of the Act. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, interim order dated 7-6-2011 is vacated and WPMP No.18016/2011, WVMP Nos.2307/2011 and 3178/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 2-9-2011 AM [1] AIR 1993 A.P. 6 [2] 2001(6) ALD 359 [3] 2007 (3) ALT 440