THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.11560 of 2003 DATED: 12.08.2010 Between: Devabhathuni Venkata Krishna Rao .. Petitioner And The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nuzvid, Krishna District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: It appears, in the statutory enquiry conducted into the affairs of the 2nd respondent Society namely the Pothureddypalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, the petitioner herein, who was the Ex- President, and the 3rd respondent- Ex-Secretary of the Society, were found responsible for misappropriation of the funds of the 2nd respondent Society, and ultimately, the 1st respondent- Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nuzvid, issued surcharge orders dated 15.02.2000, making them liable to pay the amounts that were found to have been misappropriated by them, with interest at 18% per annum. Questioning the said orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal in O.A.No.118 of 2000 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, and the same was dismissed on 06.04.2002. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent issued a demand notice in Form No.6, demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,59,245.32 ps. recoverable from him under the surcharge order within ten days from the date of service of notice, in default of which properties set out in the schedule thereof were ordered to be sold/attached. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner held the post of President of the Society only for short tenure and he did not commit the irregularities alleged, that no oral or documentary evidence was available on record except the enquiry officers’ report, to hold the petitioner guilty of misappropriation, that during the course of surcharge enquiry, petitioner was not given ample opportunity to substantiate his case and he was wrongly held responsible for the alleged misappropriation, that the rate of interest fixed at 18%, under the surcharge order, is excessive and unreasonable, and the Tribunal, without considering the matter in right perspective, upheld the surcharge orders, which is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is no doubt true that, except the enquiry officer’s report, there was no other evidence adduced in regard to the misappropriation of the funds alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. But however, a perusal of the surcharge order would make it clear that the petitioner filed his counter and written arguments, through his advocate, pursuant to the notice of independent surcharge enquiry, and the same were duly taken into consideration by the 1st respondent, while passing the surcharge orders. Thus, it cannot be said that based on the enquiry officer’s report alone, the 1st respondent held the petitioner liable and no opportunity was given to the petitioner during the course of enquiry. No grounds are made out to find fault with the surcharge order, so far as fixing the liability on the petitioner, as confirmed by the Tribunal. However, so far as the rate of interest fixed at 18% per annum on the amount liable to be paid by the petitioner, is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner is directed to pay the amount under the surcharge order at the said rate of interest, from the year 1994 till realization, it will be more than three times of the principal amount sought to be recovered from him and therefore the rate of interest may be reduced. He further submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the huge amount as ordered in Form No.6, but however, he has already paid Rs.1 lakh, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court dated 22.06.2005. He has also taken this Court through the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.977 of 2002, dated 30.06.2006, whereunder this Court, in similar circumstances, reduced the rate of interest from 15% to 8%. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the judgment rendered by this Court in similar circumstances, referred above, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if the rate of interest is reduced to 8% from 18%. Accordingly, the rate of interest at 18%, as fixed by the 1st respondent under the surcharge order and confirmed by the Tribunal under the impugned order, is reduced to 8% per annum, in respect of the petitioner herein, and, except this modification, the orders of the 1st respondent and the Tribunal stand good in all other respects. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 12th August, 2010 IBL