THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.156 of 2007 Dated 10th February, 2011 Between: Smt.Nafeesa Begum …Petitioner And The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.H.R.Choudary Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4: GP for Cooperation The Court made the following: ORDER: Since the scope of the writ petition and the vacate stay application is identical, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, and perused the record. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.3-Society. An enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) was held into the affairs of respondent No.3-Society. Evidently, during the said enquiry, the husband of the petitioner died on 16.12.1996. On submission of enquiry report, dated 10.11.1997, by the Enquiry Officer, respondent No.2 issued notice, dated 28.08.2006, to the petitioner, being the wife of the deceased employee, under Section 60(1) of the Act. Questioning this notice, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner also sought invalidation of attachment orders passed as far back as 30.12.1996 and 23.01.2004. The petitioner has pleaded that as the employee, against whom, findings were rendered in the enquiry report, has died, the respondents cannot proceed against her. In my opinion, the writ petition is wholly premature, because so far the liability of the petitioner has not been determined. The proceedings under Sections 51 and 60 of the Act are statutory in nature. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has no power or jurisdiction to initiate surcharge proceedings. The question whether the petitioner, who succeeded to the assets of the deceased employee, against whom, findings of misappropriation were rendered in the statutory enquiry held under Section 51 of the Act, is liable for the amounts payable by her husband or not, requires to be determined under the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under Section 60 of the Act. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for the petitioner to rush to this Court at the stage of show-cause notice without filing her objections to the same. In the premises as above, the writ petition is wholly without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 03.01.2007, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.191 of 2007 shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.191 of 2007 and W.V.M.P.No.2291 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th February, 2011 VGB