IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13087 of 2009 Between: Allampati Krishna Reddy S/o Late Allampati Venkata Reddy Mamudur,Chejarla(M) S.P.S.R Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Tribunal Vijayawada 2 The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies Nellore,S.P.S.R Nellore District 3 The Sydapuram P.A.C.S Ltd rep.by its Secretary,Sydapuram S.P.S.R Nellore District .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of 1st respondent Dt 08-06-2009 in M.P No.206 of 2008 in S.R No.719/2008 dismissing the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the surcharge orders in RC No.94/2005-B dt 14-3- 2007 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Section 76 of the APCS Act and set aside the same and further direct the 1st respondent to hear and dispose of the appeal on the merits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SASIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada in M.P.No.206 of 2008 in S.R.No.719/2008 dated 8.6.2009 dismissing the delay condonation application filed by him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Paid Secretary of the 3rd respondent – Sydapuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited to the utmost satisfaction of all the members of the society as also the authorities. While so, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nellore, the 2nd respondent herein, has issued a show cause notice under Section 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking his explanation for passing the surcharge orders. But, without recording his evidence, orders were passed fixing the responsibility against him and the President jointly and severally. However, only a Xerox copy of the order was served on him and, therefore, he could not file the appeal before the Tribunal and only on 5.12.2008 he was served with the impugned orders and immediately thereafter he filed the appeal. But with abundant caution he filed the delay condonation application also, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order and hence this writ petition. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as the Secretary of the 3rd respondent society and the 2nd respondent herein conducted surcharge enquiry under Section 60 of the Act and orders were issued fixing the financial responsibility against the petitioner for recovering the amounts with interest. It is also stated that execution proceedings are also initiated against the petitioner and at that stage he filed the appeal with delay condonation petition. Even though the petitioner contends that he was issued with only Xerox copy of the order and that he applied before the Tribunal for the certified copy of the surcharge order dated 14.3.2005, the Tribunal below in its order observed as under; “On perusal of the material papers submitted by the first respondent it is noticed that the petitioner was served with the surcharge orders in R.C.No.94/2005-B dated 14.3.2007 and obtained his acknowledgement on 2.5.2007 from the petitioner/appellant. The acknowledgement order, which was obtained on the letter head of the society reads as follows; “Received surcharge orders RC No.940/2005-B, dated 14.3.2007 from DLCO’s Office, Nellore through the Chief Executive Officer, Sydapuram, PACS” From the above, it is clear that the petitioner, in fact, received the surcharge orders on 2.5.2007 itself and only for the purpose of filing the appeal, the stand that he was not served with the certified copy of the order was taken. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal below is just and proper and does not warrant interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.9.7.2009