IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 25946 of 2008 Between: M. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Hindu, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Nagireddipally, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Nagiredipalli, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District, Rep. by its Executive Secretary. 3 C.P. Subbanna, S/o.Not Known, The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 1st respondent in passing surcharge order against the petitioner in his Rc.NO. 306/2007-D dated 15-02-2008 modifying the surcharge order in Rc.No. 306/2007-D, dated 28-12- 2007 without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry under Section 60 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1964 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, malafide extraneous and colourable exercise of power and against statutory provisions including Section 60 of the Act and consequently set aside the surcharge order passed by the 1st respondent in his Rc.No. 306/2007-D dated 15-02-2008 modifying the surcharge order in Rc.No. 306/2007-D dated 28-12-2007 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. Earlier the petitioner was issued a surcharge order dated 28-12- 2007 whereunder the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kadapa, in exercise of his powers under Section 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, directed collection of Rs.3,81,529/- and Rs.13,500/- with interest at 18% per annum from the petitioner herein and Sri N.Venkatesh, Ex-Secretary of the Aswathugaripally Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. Subsequently, another order of surcharge was passed on 15-02-2008 whereunder the petitioner was alone fixed with the liability of payment of Rs.3,41,529/- and Sri N.Venkatesh was absolved of his liability, though in the earlier part of the order the Deputy Registrar held that Sri N.Venkatesh was also liable. Several contentions were urged by Sri L.J.Veera Reddy including that, in the absence of a power of review, the Deputy Registrar was incompetent to pass the surcharge order for the very same allegations, that the third respondent herein had acted out of malice for extraneous considerations since he was due to retire shortly and that, in any event, the impugned order was passed without putting the petitioner on notice. Learned Government Pleader would straightaway concede that, since the impugned order dated 15-02- 2008 has been passed without notice to the petitioner, it is liable to be quashed. She would also state that, in the light of the earlier surcharge order dated 28-12-2007, the Deputy Registrar could not have passed the impugned surcharge order dated 15-02-2008. In view of the fair submission of the learned Government Pleader, the impugned surcharge order dated 15-02-2008 is quashed. Since the said order is quashed, it is wholly unnecessary to go into the question of malice and whether issuance of a surcharge order dated 15-02-2008 without putting the petitioner on notice necessitated its being quashed. Suffice to hold that quashing of the order dated 15-02-2008 shall not preclude the respondent from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with the earlier surcharge order dated 28- 12-2007, and in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th November 2008 Cvrk