THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 861 of 2010 Dated: 22.02.2010 Between: V.V.R.Patanjali … Petitioner And Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and 4 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 861 of 2010 O R D E R : The 1st respondent herein by order dated 25.02.2008 passed under Section 60(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.11,82,684/- from the petitioner, who was the former Secretary of the 5th respondent-society with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred C.T.A.No.43 of 2009 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal. After hearing both the parties, by order dated 04.11.2009, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the surcharge order dated 25.02.2008 and remanded the matter with a direction to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by giving opportunity to both the parties and to record a finding on the payments made by the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that having set aside the surcharge order, dated 25.02.2008, the Tribunal ought to have left it open to the respondents to enquire into the entire issue instead of confining it only to the payments made by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and perused the material available on record. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal below in page 7 of the order impugned having found that the finding that certain amounts were paid after the surcharge notice was apparently wrong and there was no proof to whom the payments were made further observed that the 1st respondent had failed to apply his mind and there was a glaring mistake on his part in reducing the amount of Rs.11,57,000/- from the balance liability of Rs.23,71,334/- and that the impugned order was passed in the most casual manner. In the light of the said observations made by the Tribunal, it appears to me that while setting aside the order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, the Tribunal ought to have left it open to make a fresh enquiry with regard to all the objections raised by the petitioner so as to protect the interest of both the parties. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.11.2009 in C.T.A.No.43 of 2009 is modified setting aside the order of the 1st respondent in toto and directing the 1st respondent to make an enquiry afresh giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5th respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on all the issues in controversy as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three month from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 22.02.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week B/o KLP