HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO. 20989 OF 2001 DATED : 25-11-2010 Between: Ch.Yadagiri …Petitioner And The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO. 20989 OF 2001 O R D E R: The petitioner seeks Mandamus against the order dated 17-8-2001 passed by the A.P.Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 470 of 2001 in C.T.A.SR No. 4455 of 2001. 2. The petitioner worked as Secretary of the 2nd respondent society. The surcharge certificate dated 01.03.1999 for Rs.6,314/- together with interest was given by the 1st respondent under Section 60(1) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 ( in short ‘the Act’) after following due procedure on the ground that he had drawn the said amount towards bonus without legal entitlement. As against the said surcharge certificate, the petitioner intended to file an appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, but filed the same with a delay of 780 days. He sought the Tribunal to condone the said delay of 780 days in exercise of discretion under Section 76(3) of the Act. The appellate Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the petition refusing to condone the delay. The petitioner gave his own reasons for condoning the said delay. 3. According to the petitioner, he approached a local advocate on 28-04-1999 who directed him to approach one Sri A.Narender, Advocate, Hyderabad, for filing the appeal and on 30-4-1999 the petitioner handed over all the papers to him for filing the appeal. The said Advocate at Hyderabad informed petitioner that he would inform status of the case to the local advocate, and asked him to approach the local advocate for further information. The petitioner further states that the local advocate informed him that the appeal was filed and that it would take some time for disposal of the same. Meanwhile, the petitioner received notice dated 16-05-2001 in EP No. 141/98-99 for recovery of money covered by the surcharge certificate. The petitioner alleges that when he approached the local advocate, he informed the petitioner that the Advocate at Hyderabad to whom the case was entrusted died and his relations were searching for the record. The petitioner did not disclose name of the local advocate whom he approached. If really allegations of the petitioner are correct, then it amounts to cheating the petitioner by the advocates by way of representing that the appeal was filed, without in fact filing the same. If really the allegations are true, the petitioner would have taken steps against the living advocate whose name is not disclosed, before disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for professional misconduct. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he refused to name the local advocate whom he approached. 4. The delay of 780 days which is more than two years is an inordinate delay. This is not a delay involving few days which can be considered in a very casual manner. Having received the surcharge certificate, the petitioner kept quiet, but intended to file an appeal before the appellate authority after two years, only after receiving notice in execution proceedings. The petition for condonation of delay contained allegations which are baseless and not substantiated. The appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there are no sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt.25-11-2010 Mjl/*