THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25285 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was an employee of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Choppella Village of East Godavari District. For some time, he functioned as In-charge Secretary. An inspection was conducted under Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and on the basis of the findings thereon, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and two other employees. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed in surcharge proceedings, the petitioner filed O.A.No.26 of 2009 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The O.A. was allowed on 30.11.2010. An amount of Rs.10,000/- which was collected from the petitioner at one stage of the proceedings was also refunded. However, the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Rajahmundry, respondent No.1 herein, sought permission from the District Collector, Kakinada, respondent No.2 herein, to prosecute the petitioner herein. On permission being accorded by respondent No.2 to prosecute the petitioner and two others, a case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner challenges various steps taken by the respondents in proposing to prosecute him. On behalf of respondent No.1, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the proceedings for seeking permission to prosecute the petitioner were initiated soon after the competent authority passed surcharge orders under Section 60 of the Act and that not being aware that the surcharge order was set aside by the appellate authority, permission was accorded. It is stated that further steps will be taken in accordance with law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The record discloses that the correspondence was undertaken by respondent No.1 seeking permission to prosecute the petitioner and two others, based upon the findings in the surcharge proceedings. The surcharge proceedings were subject matter of an appeal before the appellate authority and the petitioner was exonerated. Obviously not being aware of this fact, respondent No.2 accorded permission and on the basis of the same, F.I.R. was registered. Now that it emerges that the petitioner is not liable to be surcharged, the very basis for persecution ceases to exist. Hence, the writ petition is allowed directing that the F.I.R. in Cr.No.105 of 2011 registered in Alamur P.S. in so far as it relates to the petitioner is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:27.09.2011. kdl