THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7422 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner functioned as President of the Bank of India Staff Cooperative Credit Society Limited, the 4th respondent herein, between 2002 and 2005. The functional Registrar, the 2nd respondent herein, caused inspection into the affairs of the society, under Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short, “the Act”). On finding that certain financial irregularities have taken place, surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act, were initiated against the President and other Office Bearers, such as Secretary and Treasurer of the Society. Explanations were submitted, and after conducting an enquiry, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 26.3.2007, directing recovery of amount from the petitioner and other office bearers. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent did not examine the matter from correct perspective, and the only allegation against the petitioner is that the amounts of the society were invested in Non- Nationalized Banks, and the said deposits were made, in pursuance of the resolution of a General Body. He contends that none of the pleas raised during the course of enquiry were considered, effectively. Separate counter affidavits are filed, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, respondent No.4, and respondents 5 to 7. An objection is raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition. On merits also, the action is sought to be justified. Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client is not at all responsible for making the deposits in Cooperative Urban Banks, and at the relevant point of time, the said financial institutions were flourishing well. He contends that though reference is made to several proceedings, the 3rd respondent did not examine the matter, in detail, with reference to the explanation offered by the petitioner. He submits that notwithstanding the fact that there is effective alternative remedy, by way of appeal, this is a fit case for remand. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri S.Surya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7, on the other hand, submit that the impugned order was preceded by a statutory inspection, under Section 52 of the Act, and if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order, he has to avail the remedy of appeal, under Section 76 of the Act. The impugned order was preceded by statutory inspection, under Section 52 of the Act. Treating the report of the inspection as basis, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and two others. The main allegation against the petitioner is that huge amount belonging to the society was invested and deposited in the financial institutions, other than nationalized banks. Reference is made to a statutory provision and administrative instructions. On his part, the 3rd respondent examined the matter, with reference to the material on record. If any factual or legal mistake has crept into the order, it can be corrected in the appeal, provided for under Section 76 of the Act, and the appellate authority would be better suited to examine the matter, in detail, with reference to the record. When there exists an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal, this court cannot entertain the writ petition. No jurisdictional errors are pointed out. It may be true that Section 76 of the Act mandates that part of the disputed amount must be deposited, as a condition precedent, for availing the remedy of appeal. However, the Tribunal is also vested with the power to grant necessary relief, in this regard. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. Since the period of limitation had expired, it is directed that in case, the petitioner presents appeal within six weeks from today, it shall be entertained, without raising any objection as to the limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 2nd July 2008 PAN