IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11959 of 2001 Between: Y.V.S.R.Murthy S/o. Late Venkatesam Visakhapatnam, At Present Braves Buildings, D.n.45-55-312, Abidnagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhpatnam-530016, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies, Visakhapatnam. 2 Bharat Co-op House building Society Ltd., represented by its Secretary, No.1878, Kakani Nagar, Visakhpatnam. 3 The A.P.Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to examine the records relating to surcharge order of the 1st Respondent dated 25.03.1992 and the order dated 10.07.2000 passed in O.A.No.72 of 1998 of A.P. Co-op Tribunal, Vijayawada and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the proceedings of the ﬁrst Respondent in R.C.No.4184/89-C1 dated 25.03.2002 and the orders passed in O.A.No.72 of 1998 dated 10.07.2000 of the third respondent by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11959 OF 2001 O R D E R The petitioner in this writ petition, being the former Secretary of Bharat Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Visakhapatnam, the second respondent herein, challenges the surcharge proceedings initiated against him under Section 60(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), which culminated in the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Visakhapatnam, the ﬁrst respondent herein, in Rc.No.4184/89-C1, dated 25.03.1992 and the order dated 10.07.2000 passed by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, the third respondent herein, in O.A.No.72 of 1998 confirming the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge various grounds touching upon the facts and merits of the proceedings under challenge. I am of the considered view that this writ petition cannot be converted into a further appeal against the appellate order passed by the third respondent-Tribunal. The exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to the review of the orders passed by the Authorities only for verifying as to whether there is a defect in the decision making process. It is not for this Court to substitute its view on facts and merits for the views taken by the Authorities, be it Primary Authority or the Appellate Authority. Accordingly the issues sought to be raised on facts do not have the disposition amenable for adjudication in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proceedings under challenge are not sustainable in as much as the authorities failed to properly appreciate the material on record and also acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was deprived of a full and proper opportunity to meet the allegations levelled against him. This submission is found to be lacking in force inasmuch as the orders passed by the Primary and Appellate Authorities clearly demonstrate that the authorities considered the material on record comprehensively and passed cogent and well reasoned orders in support of the ﬁndings arrived at by them. Further, the orders would also demonstrate that the petitioner was given full opportunity to present his case and the record would also show that he obtained extension of time on several occasions for coming forth with his defence. The authorities also placed on record the reasons which led them to pin the liability upon the petitioner for the losses suﬀered by the second respondent-society. In the light of the well reasoned and justiﬁed ﬁndings on facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has utterly failed in raising a valid or tenable ground warranting interference with the orders under challenge. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 22nd OCTOBER, 2008 PGS 33 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11959 of 2001 22ND OCTOBER, 2008